Given the rapid development of science and technology, enterprises face an external environment that is changing fast, and managers have had to adjust processes related to production and management accordingly. Various types of teams have been formed in organizations and have become a basic unit of enterprise management systems. Therefore, team performance is becoming increasingly important to organizations.

Team learning orientation reflects members’ shared perception of team goals related to the development of skills, learning, and competence, whereby the team pursues goals that guide the extent, scope, and magnitude of learning behaviors (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003). Previous researchers have shown that team learning orientation positively influences the performance of the team at the individual level, but this has not been confirmed at the team level. Although numerous scholars have examined the relationship between team learning orientation and team performance, the results have been inconsistent. Porter (2005) provided empirical evidence that team learning orientation effectively fostered team performance. However, Bunderson and Sutcliffe (2003) surveyed World Fortune 100 companies, which yielded conflicting results indicating that the relationship between team learning orientation and team performance was not a simple linear one. Specifically, Bunderson and Sutcliffe reported finding that prior team performance moderated the relationship between team learning orientation and current team performance, which implies that team learning orientation cannot significantly influence the performance of teams that are already highly effective. Further, Pieterse, van Knippenberg, and van Ginkel (2011) conducted a laboratory study and found that diversity in learning and performance orientation were related to decreased group performance.

The above research findings suggest that the relationship between team learning orientation and team performance is complicated. Therefore, we applied the motivated information processing group (MIP-G) model to reveal the mechanism driving the relationship between team learning orientation and team performance. Using the MIP-G model, it has been demonstrated that group members who have high prosocial motivation—that is, a strong focus on joint outcomes and fairness (Bechtoldt, De Dreu, Nijstad, & Choi, 2010)—are more likely than are their peers to engage in systematic information processing (Beersma, Homan, Gerben, & De Dreu, 2013; De Dreu, Nijstad, & van Knippenberg, 2008; Hirst, Van Knippenberg, & Zhou, 2009), which promotes team performance. Furthermore, from the MIP-G perspective, team learning orientation reflects the prosocial motivation of team members (Hirst et al., 2009), which effectively promotes their in-depth and systematic processing of information to promote team performance (Beersma et al., 2013; De Dreu et al., 2008). Therefore, our first objective in the current research was to apply the MIP-G model to examine the role of team learning orientation in predicting team performance.

Our second objective was to examine the mediating role of team task reflexivity in the relationship between team learning orientation and team performance. Team task reflexivity refers to “the extent to which group members overtly reflect upon, and communicate about, the group’s objectives, strategies (e.g., decision making) and processes (e.g., communication), and adapt them to current or anticipated circumstances” (West, Garrod, & Carletta, 1997, pp. 293–316). De Dreu (2007) noted that team task reflexivity could reflect a team’s in-depth processing of information. Therefore, we applied the MIP-G model to examine this potential mediating role.

Our third objective in this research was to determine if the relationship between team learning orientation and team performance is positively affected by the degree of variability in leader–member exchange (LMX) patterns within work teams, that is, the leader–member exchange differentiation (LMXD). Greater LMXD indicates a closer social exchange relationship between leaders and certain team members—but not all members. To clarify, leaders engage in varying types of relationships with different subordinates. Per justice theory (Bies & Moag, 1986), there is a conflict consequence, in that differentiation in the relationships between leaders and team members results in a sense of injustice among all team members, negatively affects the team members’ work mood, and has a negative impact on team performance (Bolino & Turnley, 2009). However, from the perspective of role theory (Liden & Graen, 1980), differentiation in the relationship between leaders and team members is conducive to allocating resources more effectively and to promoting team performance (Liden, Erdogan, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2006). In the light of these different consequences, we believed that the relationship between team learning orientation and team performance would be influenced by LMXD. Therefore, we explored if the relationship between team learning orientation and team performance would be positively affected by the level of differentiation in the relationship between leaders and team members.

Literature Review and Hypotheses

Team Learning Orientation and Team Performance

In numerous empirical studies (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Butler, 1993; Button, Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996; Kozlowski et al., 2001; VandeWalle, Brown, Cron, & Slocum, 1999), researchers have demonstrated that team learning orientation is linked to behavior related to constant adjustments and changes, and promotes team output, thereby enhancing team performance (Kozlowski et al., 2001; Stevens & Gist, 1997; Winters & Latham, 1996). A team’s learning goal orientation determines the degree, extent, and importance of members’ learning behavior (Edmondson, 1999), and helps the team adapt to a changing environment, continually optimize the work process, improve outcomes, and find new ways and methods for achieving goals. Furthermore, a strong learning orientation encourages members to focus on the team’s working state and the attainability of the team’s goals, and to utilize conscious communication, feedback, and adjustment to promote the attainability of those goals. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Team learning orientation will promote team performance.

The Mediating Role of Team Task Reflexivity

Compared to other team process variables, such as team learning (Edmondson, 1999), team conflict (Farh, Lee, & Farh, 2010), and information exchange (Gong, Cheung, Wang, & Huang, 2012), team task reflexivity not only reflects a cognitive energy input that promotes information sharing, mutual learning, and understanding among team members, but it is also an important function that encourages team members to reflect on, and remedy, problems. In addition, a learning orientation promotes team members’ thorough, complete, and accurate understanding of team tasks, and promotes their willingness to undertake information search, exchange, and processing among team members (De Dreu et al., 2008) to achieve collective goals, remedy errors, and better adapt to changes in the environment (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003; De Dreu, 2007; Gong & Fan, 2006). Therefore, we believe that team learning would be effective in encouraging team members to reflect on their tasks.

Team task reflexivity has been described as a transfer process that includes a series of actions between implementation and performance, the focus of which is generally on two aspects: performance results and preparation for the future (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). Team members may reconcile differences in task representations by reflecting on these (van Ginkel, Tindale, & van Knippenberg, 2009), or by helping the team to form the next plan to reach their performance goal. Conversely, by deliberately reflecting on problem areas and improving on past performance, team members may learn from previous mistakes and promote team performance (Schippers, Homan, & van Knippenberg, 2013; Shin, 2014; van Ginkel et al., 2009). Numerous scholars have expressed the belief that team task reflexivity is positively related to team performance (Carter & West, 1998; De Dreu, 2002, 2007; Gevers, van Eerde, & Rutte, 2001; Somech, 2006). On the basis of the above analysis, we proposed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2: Team learning orientation will promote team task reflexivity.
Hypothesis 3: Team task reflexivity will mediate the relationship between team learning orientation and team performance.

The Moderating Role of Leader–Member Exchange Differentiation

Per the original theory of LMX (Dansereau, 1975), a differentiated relationship between the leader and each team member represents the distribution of task roles for different members. Generally, members with a high-quality LMX relationship are assigned challenging tasks by the leader and members with a low-quality LMX relationship are assigned simple, routine tasks (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden et al., 2006). Specifically, greater LMXD among team members means that a learning-oriented team will convert the conflict resulting from differ- entiation into constructive suggestions and promote the team’s reflection on the task and implementation processes (Liden et al., 2006). Low-LMX members of a learning-oriented team will evaluate their performance through communication with the high-LMX members, which encourages low-LMX team members to reflect on the task (Sias & Jablin, 1995).

Conversely, under the condition of a low level of LMXD in a learning-oriented team, members whose performance is outstanding develop a psychological discrepancy when they perceive that leaders have established equitable relationships with all team members. This decreases the participation of the high- performing members (Liden et al., 2006), who play a significant role in team task reflexivity. Similarly, a high level of LMXD causes low-LMX members in a learning-oriented team to not only reflect on their tasks but also to learn from the high-LMX members how to strengthen their skills and abilities, which, in turn, enhances the team’s performance (Sias & Jablin, 1995). From the perspective of role theory (Liden & Graen, 1980) and on the basis of the above analysis, we proposed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 4: Leader–member exchange differentiation will positively moderate the relationship between team learning orientation and team task reflexivity.
Hypothesis 5: A high level of leader–member exchange differentiation will moderate the mediated relationship between team learning orientation and team performance via team task reflexivity, such that the indirect effect becomes stronger when leader–member exchange differentiation is greater.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Four members of our research team conducted a survey with employees of a large cross-industry group company in Mainland China, which has more than 100 affiliates in several countries in Asia. We chose 10 affiliates across two industries in this group company, namely, the traditional industry of agriculture and the emerging industry of new energy, and we randomly selected middle managers along with their teams. To avoid possible common method bias, we separated leaders and their team members when we asked them to fill in the questionnaire on the spot in their workplace. All participants took part on a voluntary basis and provided informed consent.

Questionnaires were distributed to 50 teams (288 employees), and we received valid responses from 35 teams (226 employees). The process resulted in a leader return rate of 70% and an employee return rate of 78.47%. On average, each team consisted of 6.46 members (SD = 1.89, range 2–8). Among the leaders, 65% were men, 49.7% had graduated from high school, 47.5% held a bachelor’s degree, and 2.8% held master’s degree or higher academic qualification; their average age was 30.59 years (SD = 4.93, range = 22–44), and they had worked for the company for an average of 8.03 years (SD = 4.94, range = 1.5–27.17). Among the team members, 79.4% were men, 48.3% had graduated from high school and 51.7% held a bachelor’s degree or higher academic qualification; their average age was 29.14 years (SD = 5.85, range = 19–48), and they had worked for the company for an average of 2.46 years (SD = 2.74, range = 0.5–13.5).

Measures

Leaders evaluated the performance of their team as a whole and team members evaluated the learning orientation and task reflexivity of their team as a whole as well as their individual level of LMX. The measures used for this study have been validated in prior studies that were conducted in a Chinese cultural context. Responses to all items were made on a 5-point scale that ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Learning orientation. We measured learning orientation using five items developed by Vandewalle and Cummings (1997). Team members were asked to assess the extent to which their team looks for opportunities to develop new skills and knowledge, and likes challenging and difficult assignments that teach new things. Cronbach’s alpha was .70 in this study.

Leader–member exchange differentiation. We measured LMXD using seven items developed by Scandura and Graen (1984), including “How well do you feel that your immediate supervisor understands your problems and needs?” and “Regardless of how much formal authority your immediate supervisor has built into his or her position, what are the chances that he or she would be personally inclined to use their influence to help you solve problems in your work?” Cronbach’s alpha was .82 in this study.

Team performance. We measured team performance using six items developed by Black and Porter (1991), which covered the following aspects of performance: overall performance, achievement of work goals, and completing tasks on time. Cronbach’s alpha was .84 in this study.

Team task reflexivity. We measured team task reflexivity using four items developed by Schippers et al. (2013), including “We regularly discuss whether the team is working effectively” and “The methods used by the team to get the job done are often discussed.” Cronbach’s alpha was .75 in this study.

Control variables. Owing to their significant impact on team performance reported in prior studies (Farh et al., 2010; Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009), we controlled for team size, dyadic tenure, task dependence, and outcome dependence.

Results

Discriminant Validity Analysis

We performed a confirmatory factor analysis test using LISREL 8.70 software and eight indicators (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993): chi square, degrees of freedom, incremental fit index, nonnormed fit index, comparative fit index, normed fit index, relative fit index, and root mean square error of approximation. As can be seen in Table 1, the assumed four-factor nested model had an acceptable level of goodness of fit with the various indicators, and the fit of the alternative three-, two-, and one-factor nested models was not as good. The primary variables included in the four-factor model questionnaire possessed good discriminant validity, indicating that the model could be used to analyze the relationships between the variables.

Descriptive Statistics of Variables

To determine whether the data could be analyzed at the team level, we conducted intraclass correlation (ICC) tests to add team learning orientation, team task reflexivity, and LMXD data from the individual level to the data from the team level. The results were as follows: team learning orientation, ICC(1) = .03, ICC(2) = .53, F = 2.12, p < .01; team task reflexivity, ICC(1) = .03, ICC(2) = .59, F = 2.46, p < .01; and LMXD, ICC(1) = .04, ICC(2) = .58, F = 2.37, p < .01, which indicated that individual data could be added to team-level data for processing. We also calculated the within-group agreement (r_wg) mean for each variable; for team learning orientation, team task reflexivity, team performance, and LMXD the r_wg was .98, .98, .99, and .99, respectively, showing good intragroup reliability.

Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients of the primary variables. The reliability test results demonstrate that team learning orientation was significantly and positively related to both team task reflexivity and team performance, and that team task reflexivity was significantly and positively related to team performance.

Testing of Hypotheses

We tested Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 using bootstrapping and the SPSS PROCESS macro developed by Preacher and Hayes (2008). Team learning orientation was set as an independent variable; team task reflexivity as a mediating variable; team performance as a dependent variable; and team size, dyadic tenure, task dependency, and outcome dependency as control variables. Bootstrap resampling using 5,000 runs was utilized to conduct an intermediary effect test. As shown in Table 3, team learning orientation had a significant impact on team performance; therefore, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Team learning orientation had a positive impact on team task reflexivity; therefore, Hypothesis 2 was supported. When team task reflexivity was added, the significant impact of team learning orientation on team performance decreased. However, the direct effect was still significant and the indirect impact of team learning orientation on team performance through team task reflexivity indicated that team task reflexivity played a partial mediating role in the relationship. This provided further support for Hypothesis 2.

We used SPSS version 17.0 to conduct a regression analysis to examine the moderating role of LMXD on the relationship between team learning orientation and team task reflexivity (see Table 4). First, team learning orientation and LMXD were centralized. Second, after these two variables were inputted, the explanation effect of team task reflexivity as the dependent variable significantly increased. Third, when the interaction terms of team learning orientation and LMXD were added, LMXD had a significantly positive moderating effect on both team learning orientation and team task reflexivity, which explained 4% of the variance. These results indicate that LMXD played a positive moderating role; therefore, Hypothesis 3 was supported.

To test Hypothesis 4, we used a bootstrapping approach with the SPSS PROCESS macro that was developed by Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007). Team learning orientation was set as the independent variable; team task reflexivity as a mediator; team performance as the dependent variable; LMXD as a moderating variable; and team size, dyadic tenure, task dependence, and outcome dependence as control variables. Bootstrap resampling using 5,000 runs was used to test for intermediary effects. Table 5 shows that when LMXD was low (-1 SD), the indirect effect of team learning orientation on team performance via team task reflexivity was not significant, but when LMXD was high (+1 SD), the indirect effect via team task reflexivity was significant. These results demonstrate that team learning orientation influenced team performance through team task reflexivity only when LMXD was high. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was supported.

Further, Figure 2 shows that team learning orientation had a significant impact on team task reflexivity among the high-LMXD respondents, but the effect was not significant among the low-LMXD respondents. These results also supported Hypothesis 5.

Discussion

We analyzed the influence of team learning orientation on team performance by conducting empirical analyses, and found that team learning orientation promoted team performance, team task reflexivity mediated the relationship between team learning orientation and team performance, and LMXD positively moderated the relationship between team learning orientation and team task reflexivity, which strengthened the indirect impact of learning orientation on team performance through the mediator of team task reflexivity.

The theoretical implications of this research are as follows. First, we observed a positive impact of team learning orientation on team performance by using the MIP-G model. Because we examined the relationship between team learning orientation and team performance, our focus was different from that of some prior researchers (Beck & Schmidt, 2013; Gong, Kim, Lee, & Zhu, 2013; Pieterse, van Knippenberg, & van Dierendonck, 2013; Porter, Webb, & Gogus, 2010), who examined team performance or team outcomes according to team goal orientation (diversity). The results we obtained clarify the mechanism between team learning orientation and the team performance from the perspective of the MIP-G model, enrich the extant literature regarding team learning orientation and team performance, and align with the finding of Unger-Aviram and Erez (2016) that teams’ learning goals and performance are positively related. Conflicting study results led in the past to controversy regarding the relationship between team learning orientation and team performance (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003; Porter, 2005). To address this, we utilized the MIP-G model, in which it is proposed that team learning orientation is a prosocial motivation of team members that determines the team’s in-depth and systematic processing of information, and effectively improves team performance (Beersma et al., 2013; De Dreu et al., 2008; Hirst et al., 2009). Our conclusions extend current theories on team learning orientation and team performance.

Second, we found that team task reflexivity played a partially mediating role in the relationship between team learning orientation and team performance, which provides a new framework for scholars to better understand the influence of team learning orientation on team performance. Team learning orientation has also been associated with team adaptability, and LePine (2005) found that team members with a high (vs. low) learning goal orientation were more likely to adapt in response to gradual and unforeseen change. Further, team adaptability is based on team members communicating effectively about shared goals and strategies. As team learning orientation becomes stronger, we found that the team becomes more stimulated to reflect on their tasks and team performance improves. Further, team task reflexivity, which represents team members’ behavior and efforts made to identify and reduce discrepancies between current and ideal factors in the team’s domain, significantly mediated the impact of team learning orientation on team performance. When a team has a learning orientation, members are encouraged to interact with, and learn from and about, each other, which alters previous team practices (Gersick & Hackman, 1990); through this communication, the mutual understanding of team members is enhanced and collective interests are increased, thereby promoting team performance (Goodman & Leyden, 1991).

In addition, we demonstrated that greater LMXD promoted the role positioning of team members (Liden et al., 2006). Team members with greater LMXD having an awareness of their own position in a team is more conducive to promoting learning motivation because members reflect on how their individual role fits into the collective goals of their work assignment, adjust their role performance, and act to promote the achievement of collective goals, thus improving team performance. A high degree of LMXD in a team indicates that leaders treat high- performing and low-performing team members differently. Thus, high LMXD can be conducive to a team’s thorough reflection through learning orientation and improve team performance through team task reflexivity, and vice versa. Our findings regarding the boundary conditions of LMXD enhance understanding of the role of leaders in their teams’ learning orientation and performance, and provide a new perspective on the mechanism promoting team performance.

From a practical perspective, first, leaders should strengthen the cultivation of learning motivation of team members and encourage their subordinates’ desire for knowledge. These actions will help to mobilize team members to share, process, and utilize information and will improve team performance. Second, leaders should periodically guide team members to analyze and reflect on strategic objectives, strategy implementation, and the external business environment of teams in working systems, and make prompt adjustments according to changes in team goals. In addition, leaders should ensure there is an appropriate perception of differentiation among team members by providing more resources, help, and support to those members whose work is outstanding, in order to stimulate and promote team task reflexivity through LMXD, thereby improving team performance.

Study Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study has some limitations. First, all data on team learning orientation, team task reflexivity, and LMXD were collected at the same time and were reported by the same group of employees; this may have resulted in a higher correlation coefficient among the variables because all data came from the same source. In future studies, these data could be collected at different times before analyzing their relationships. Second, all respondents were from Mainland China; thus, further studies need to be conducted with participants from other cultures to establish if our findings are applicable in different cultural contexts.

References

Bechtoldt, M. N., De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & Choi, H.-S. (2010). Motivated information processing, social tuning, and group creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 622–637. https://doi.org/bvk4n3

Beck, J. W., & Schmidt, A. M. (2013). State-level goal orientations as mediators of the relationship between time pressure and performance: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 354–363. https://doi.org/f4rcj7

Beersma, B., Homan, A. C., Gerben, A. V. K., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2013). Outcome interdependence shapes the effects of prevention focus on team processes and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121, 194–203. https://doi.org/b7zh

Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, W. J. (2002). Goal orientation and ability: Interactive effects on self-efficacy, performance, and knowledge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 497–505. https://doi.org/c4qtrh

Bies, R., & Moag, R. (1986). Interactional justice: Communications criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Black, J. S., & Porter, L. W. (1991). Managerial behaviors and job performance: A successful manager in Los Angeles may not succeed in Hong Kong. Journal of International Business Studies, 22, 99–113. https://doi.org/fstsw7

Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2009). Relative deprivation among employees in lower-quality leader–member exchange relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 276–286. https://doi.org/bwvnck

Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2003). Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 552–560. https://doi.org/bpwj3t

Butler, R. (1993). Effects of task- and ego-achievement goals on information seeking during task engagement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 18–31. https://doi.org/bfkgw9

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, 26–48. https://doi.org/ck8q48

Carter, S. M., & West, M. A. (1998). Reflexivity, effectiveness, and mental health in BBC-TV production teams. Small Group Research, 29, 583–601. https://doi.org/bv5fws

Dansereau, F. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46–78. https://doi.org/c7n

De Dreu, C. K. W. (2002). Team innovation and team effectiveness: The importance of minority dissent and reflexivity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 285–298. https://doi.org/dcz8wr

De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 628–638. https://doi.org/c9h

De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 22–49. https://doi.org/d7v363

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383. https://doi.org/b9rmv3

Farh, J.-L., Lee, C., & Farh, C. I. C. (2010). Task conflict and team creativity: A question of how much and when. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1173–1180. https://doi.org/crntbs

Gersick, C. J. G., & Hackman, J. R. (1990). Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 65–97. https://doi.org/ff7m9s

Gevers, J. M. P., van Eerde, W., & Rutte, C. G. (2001). Time pressure, potency, and progress in project groups. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 205–221. https://doi.org/b9xzwd

Gong, Y., Cheung, S.-Y., Wang, M., & Huang, J.-C. (2012). Unfolding the proactive process for creativity: Integration of the employee proactivity, information exchange, and psychological safety perspectives. Journal of Management, 38, 1611–1633. https://doi.org/dfcmpd

Gong, Y., & Fan, J. (2006). Longitudinal examination of the role of goal orientation in cross-cultural adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 176–184. https://doi.org/fpfrqr

Gong, Y., Kim, T.-Y., Lee, D.-R., & Zhu, J. (2013). A multilevel model of team goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 827–851. https://doi.org/323

Goodman, P. S., & Leyden, D. P. (1991). Familiarity and group productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 578–586. https://doi.org/cdd9gb

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247. https://doi.org/bcpc3n

Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 280–293. https://doi.org/cvksf2

Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1128–1145. https://doi.org/ctm62h

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS™ command language. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Brown, K. G., Salas, E., Smith, E. M., & Nason, E. R. (2001). Effects of training goals and goal orientation traits on multidimensional training outcomes and performance adaptability. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 1–31. https://doi.org/dskswk

LePine, J. A. (2005). Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen change: Effects of goal difficulty and team composition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1153–1167. https://doi.org/d74vkv

Liden, R. C., Erdogan, B., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2006). Leader-member exchange, differ- entiation, and task interdependence: Implications for individual and group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 723–746. https://doi.org/bb3b9f

Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451–465. https://doi.org/b6nm4f

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. The Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376. https://doi.org/bcphb5

Pieterse, A. N., van Knippenberg, D., & van Dierendonck, D. (2013). Cultural diversity and team performance: The role of team member goal orientation. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 782–804. https://doi.org/t6c

Pieterse, A. N., van Knippenberg, D., & van Ginkel, W. P. (2011). Diversity in goal orientation, team reflexivity, and team performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114, 153–164. https://doi.org/dvrw33

Porter, C. O. L. H. (2005). Goal orientation: Effects on backing up behavior, performance, efficacy, and commitment in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 811–818. https://doi.org/fd5789

Porter, C. O. L. H., Webb, J. W., & Gogus, C. I. (2010). When goal orientations collide: Effects of learning and performance orientation on team adaptability in response to workload imbalance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 935–943. https://doi.org/bgj9fn

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. https://doi.org/b9b2k3

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. https://doi.org/fwd4vb

Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader–member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 428–436. https://doi.org/d9sjdb

Schippers, M. C., Homan, A. C., & van Knippenberg, D. (2013). To reflect or not to reflect: Prior team performance as a boundary condition of the effects of reflexivity on learning and final team performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 6–23. https://doi.org/bzx3

Shin, Y. (2014). Positive group affect and team creativity: Mediation of team reflexivity and promotion focus. Small Group Research, 45, 337–364. https://doi.org/bzx4

Sias, P. M., & Jablin, F. M. (1995). Differential superior–subordinate relations, perceptions of fairness, and coworker communication. Human Communication Research, 22, 5–38. https://doi.org/c9rfr3

Somech, A. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. Journal of Management, 32, 132–157. https://doi.org/dc63pw

Stevens, C. K., & Gist, M. E. (1997). Effects of self-efficacy and goal-orientation training on negotiation skill maintenance: What are the mechanisms? Personnel Psychology, 50, 955–978. https://doi.org/dz85g4

Unger-Aviram, E., & Erez, M. (2016). The effects of situational goal orientation and cultural learning values on team performance and adaptation to change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25, 239–253. https://doi.org/b7zj

VandeWalle, D., Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1999). The influence of goal orientation and self-regulation tactics on sales performance: A longitudinal field test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 249–259. https://doi.org/b6k9qf

VandeWalle, D., & Cummings, L. L. (1997). A test of the influence of goal orientation on the feedback-seeking process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 390–400. https://doi.org/dtg9c4

van Ginkel, W. P., Tindale, R. S., & van Knippenberg, D. (2009). Team reflexivity, development of shared task representations, and the use of distributed information in group decision making. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 13, 265–280. https://doi.org/fd9jtc

West, M. A., Garrod, S., & Carletta, J. (1997). Group decision-making and effectiveness: Unexplored boundaries. In C. L. Cooper & S. E. Jackson (Eds.), Creating tomorrow’s organizations: A handbook for future research in organizational behavior (pp. 293–316). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Winters, D., & Latham, G. P. (1996). The effect of learning versus outcome goals on a simple versus a complex task. Group & Organization Management, 21, 236–250. https://doi.org/b6q9kj

Bechtoldt, M. N., De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & Choi, H.-S. (2010). Motivated information processing, social tuning, and group creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 622–637. https://doi.org/bvk4n3

Beck, J. W., & Schmidt, A. M. (2013). State-level goal orientations as mediators of the relationship between time pressure and performance: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 354–363. https://doi.org/f4rcj7

Beersma, B., Homan, A. C., Gerben, A. V. K., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2013). Outcome interdependence shapes the effects of prevention focus on team processes and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121, 194–203. https://doi.org/b7zh

Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, W. J. (2002). Goal orientation and ability: Interactive effects on self-efficacy, performance, and knowledge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 497–505. https://doi.org/c4qtrh

Bies, R., & Moag, R. (1986). Interactional justice: Communications criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Black, J. S., & Porter, L. W. (1991). Managerial behaviors and job performance: A successful manager in Los Angeles may not succeed in Hong Kong. Journal of International Business Studies, 22, 99–113. https://doi.org/fstsw7

Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2009). Relative deprivation among employees in lower-quality leader–member exchange relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 276–286. https://doi.org/bwvnck

Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2003). Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 552–560. https://doi.org/bpwj3t

Butler, R. (1993). Effects of task- and ego-achievement goals on information seeking during task engagement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 18–31. https://doi.org/bfkgw9

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, 26–48. https://doi.org/ck8q48

Carter, S. M., & West, M. A. (1998). Reflexivity, effectiveness, and mental health in BBC-TV production teams. Small Group Research, 29, 583–601. https://doi.org/bv5fws

Dansereau, F. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46–78. https://doi.org/c7n

De Dreu, C. K. W. (2002). Team innovation and team effectiveness: The importance of minority dissent and reflexivity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 285–298. https://doi.org/dcz8wr

De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 628–638. https://doi.org/c9h

De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 22–49. https://doi.org/d7v363

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383. https://doi.org/b9rmv3

Farh, J.-L., Lee, C., & Farh, C. I. C. (2010). Task conflict and team creativity: A question of how much and when. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1173–1180. https://doi.org/crntbs

Gersick, C. J. G., & Hackman, J. R. (1990). Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 65–97. https://doi.org/ff7m9s

Gevers, J. M. P., van Eerde, W., & Rutte, C. G. (2001). Time pressure, potency, and progress in project groups. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 205–221. https://doi.org/b9xzwd

Gong, Y., Cheung, S.-Y., Wang, M., & Huang, J.-C. (2012). Unfolding the proactive process for creativity: Integration of the employee proactivity, information exchange, and psychological safety perspectives. Journal of Management, 38, 1611–1633. https://doi.org/dfcmpd

Gong, Y., & Fan, J. (2006). Longitudinal examination of the role of goal orientation in cross-cultural adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 176–184. https://doi.org/fpfrqr

Gong, Y., Kim, T.-Y., Lee, D.-R., & Zhu, J. (2013). A multilevel model of team goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 827–851. https://doi.org/323

Goodman, P. S., & Leyden, D. P. (1991). Familiarity and group productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 578–586. https://doi.org/cdd9gb

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247. https://doi.org/bcpc3n

Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 280–293. https://doi.org/cvksf2

Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1128–1145. https://doi.org/ctm62h

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS™ command language. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Brown, K. G., Salas, E., Smith, E. M., & Nason, E. R. (2001). Effects of training goals and goal orientation traits on multidimensional training outcomes and performance adaptability. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 1–31. https://doi.org/dskswk

LePine, J. A. (2005). Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen change: Effects of goal difficulty and team composition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1153–1167. https://doi.org/d74vkv

Liden, R. C., Erdogan, B., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2006). Leader-member exchange, differ- entiation, and task interdependence: Implications for individual and group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 723–746. https://doi.org/bb3b9f

Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451–465. https://doi.org/b6nm4f

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. The Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376. https://doi.org/bcphb5

Pieterse, A. N., van Knippenberg, D., & van Dierendonck, D. (2013). Cultural diversity and team performance: The role of team member goal orientation. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 782–804. https://doi.org/t6c

Pieterse, A. N., van Knippenberg, D., & van Ginkel, W. P. (2011). Diversity in goal orientation, team reflexivity, and team performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114, 153–164. https://doi.org/dvrw33

Porter, C. O. L. H. (2005). Goal orientation: Effects on backing up behavior, performance, efficacy, and commitment in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 811–818. https://doi.org/fd5789

Porter, C. O. L. H., Webb, J. W., & Gogus, C. I. (2010). When goal orientations collide: Effects of learning and performance orientation on team adaptability in response to workload imbalance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 935–943. https://doi.org/bgj9fn

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. https://doi.org/b9b2k3

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. https://doi.org/fwd4vb

Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader–member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 428–436. https://doi.org/d9sjdb

Schippers, M. C., Homan, A. C., & van Knippenberg, D. (2013). To reflect or not to reflect: Prior team performance as a boundary condition of the effects of reflexivity on learning and final team performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 6–23. https://doi.org/bzx3

Shin, Y. (2014). Positive group affect and team creativity: Mediation of team reflexivity and promotion focus. Small Group Research, 45, 337–364. https://doi.org/bzx4

Sias, P. M., & Jablin, F. M. (1995). Differential superior–subordinate relations, perceptions of fairness, and coworker communication. Human Communication Research, 22, 5–38. https://doi.org/c9rfr3

Somech, A. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. Journal of Management, 32, 132–157. https://doi.org/dc63pw

Stevens, C. K., & Gist, M. E. (1997). Effects of self-efficacy and goal-orientation training on negotiation skill maintenance: What are the mechanisms? Personnel Psychology, 50, 955–978. https://doi.org/dz85g4

Unger-Aviram, E., & Erez, M. (2016). The effects of situational goal orientation and cultural learning values on team performance and adaptation to change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25, 239–253. https://doi.org/b7zj

VandeWalle, D., Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1999). The influence of goal orientation and self-regulation tactics on sales performance: A longitudinal field test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 249–259. https://doi.org/b6k9qf

VandeWalle, D., & Cummings, L. L. (1997). A test of the influence of goal orientation on the feedback-seeking process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 390–400. https://doi.org/dtg9c4

van Ginkel, W. P., Tindale, R. S., & van Knippenberg, D. (2009). Team reflexivity, development of shared task representations, and the use of distributed information in group decision making. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 13, 265–280. https://doi.org/fd9jtc

West, M. A., Garrod, S., & Carletta, J. (1997). Group decision-making and effectiveness: Unexplored boundaries. In C. L. Cooper & S. E. Jackson (Eds.), Creating tomorrow’s organizations: A handbook for future research in organizational behavior (pp. 293–316). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Winters, D., & Latham, G. P. (1996). The effect of learning versus outcome goals on a simple versus a complex task. Group & Organization Management, 21, 236–250. https://doi.org/b6q9kj

This research was supported by a grant from the National Social Science Fund of China (12AZD061).

Jiasu Lei, School of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University, Weilun Building 377, Beijing 100084, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]