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

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21773
• Author: Christopher H. Thomas,J. Logan Jones,Walter D. Davis
• Date: 01 May 2017
• Published date: 01 May 2017

Human Resource Management, May–June 2017, Vol. 56, No. 3. Pp. 389–405

© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

DOI:10.1002/hrm.21773

Correspondence to: J. Logan Jones, Craig School of Business, Missouri Western State University, 4525 Downs Drive,

St. Joseph, MO 64507, Phone: (816) 271-4338, Fax: (816) 271-4508, E-mail: jjones81@missouriwestern.edu.

2011; Dalal et al., 2012). In fact, engagement

has been shown to positively affect individual-

level outcomes such as task performance (Bakker,

Demerouti, & Brummelhuis, 2011; Christian

et al., 2011; Rich, LePine, & Crawford, 2010),

as well as various forms of contextual perfor-

mance including proactive and extra-role behav-

iors (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Rich etal., 2010;

Saks, 2006). Research also indicates that high lev-

els of engagement can reduce negative outcomes

In recent years, both academics and human

resource practitioners have become increas-

ingly interested in the role of engagement as a

motivating mechanism that drives enhanced

performance among employees (Dalal,

Baysinger, Brummel, & LeBreton, 2012). Recent

work has supported the claim that engagement is

a distinct construct capable of explaining incre-

mental variance in variables of interest to organi-

zational scholars (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter,

IS COMPETITION ENGAGING?

EXAMINING THE INTERACTIVE

EFFECTS OF GOAL ORIENTATION

AND COMPETITIVE WORK

ENVIRONMENT ON ENGAGEMENT

J. LOGAN JONES, WALTER D. DAVIS,

ANDCHRISTOPHER H. THOMAS

Contemporary work environments are growing increasingly competitive. How-

ever, 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 com-

petitive 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 dif-

ferent 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.

©2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: engagement, goal orientation, competitive work environment

390 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MAY–JUNE 2017

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

In the presence of

these countervailing

views of competition,

coupled with the

prevalence of

competitive work

environments within

U.S. companies,

it is imperative

to broaden our

understanding of the

potential beneficial,

and detrimental,

effects of workplace

competition.

others (i.e., competition), and there seems to be a

widely accepted notion that competition results in

superior performance (Kohn, 1992, 1993; Stanne,

Johnson, & Johnson, 1999). As evidenced by the

preponderance of incentive systems and pay-for-

performance compensation structures in U.S.

organizations (Rynes, Gerhart, & Parks, 2005), it

appears that many U.S. corporations have adopted

a commitment to the belief that competition for

rewards will lead to increased engagement and

superior performance (Kohn, 1992). However, the

efficacy of competition as a means to increase per-

formance has been under debate for some time,

and the findings are equivocal at best (Johnson

& Johnson, 1989; Kohn, 1992). Critics of com-

petition stress that the pressure to perform often

results in increased anxiety, decreased motivation,

poor relationships with colleagues, and ultimately

poorer, rather than better, performance (Kohn,

1992, 1993). In the presence of these countervail-

ing views of competition, coupled with the preva-

lence of competitive work environments within

U.S. companies, it is imperative to broaden our

understanding of the potential beneficial, and

detrimental, effects of workplace competition.

However, to date, extant work on the com-

petitiveness of work environments has been

somewhat limited. A great deal of work within the

realm of education has focused on the effects of

intragroup competition on learning performance

(Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Kohn 1992, 1993).

However, investigations of the impact of com-

petition on individual performance in the realm

of work are still in their nascent stages. The work

of Fletcher and his colleagues (Fletcher, Major, &

Davis, 2008; Fletcher & Nusbaum, 2010) along

with earlier work by Brown, Cron, and Slocum

(1998) indicates that aspects of competition

within work environments may interact with per-

sonality traits (i.e., dispositions) to affect various

outcomes, but only a limited number of such dis-

positions (e.g., trait competitiveness) have been

investigated thus far. We seek to expand this work

by identifying whether goal orientation, a well-

defined and empirically validated dispositional

construct, interacts with competition to influence

engagement among employees.

It is notable that our focus on workplace com-

petition is at time when two well-known U.S. cor-

porations are drawing national media attention

for their use of forced-distribution performance

ranking systems. By embracing such a system,

Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer has been heavily criti-

cized by business pundits, and her move has been

labeled as a human resource disaster (Bercovici,

2013; Brustein, 2013). Furthermore, Mayer’s tim-

ing could not be more awkward, as CEO Steve

such as employee turnover intentions, volun-

tary turnover, and accidents (Harter, Schmidt, &

Hayes, 2002; Saks, 2006). Given the beneficial

outcomes attributed to increased engagement

among employees, it seems prudent to inves-

tigate individual and organizational predictors

of engagement, along with the role of human

resource practices in encouraging engagement

among employees.

In this article, we argue that individual goal

orientation affects engagement but that this rela-

tionship may be contingent on the extent to

which the individual’s goal orientation fits with

the competitive nature of the work environ-

ment. Adopting a person-environment (P-E) fit

perspective, we propose an interac-

tive relationship between a disposi-

tional characteristic of individuals

and a contextual characteristic of

the organization. Human resource

professionals may be particularly

interested in this effect because of

the degree to which it affects selec-

tion, appraisal, and reward deci-

sions. A great deal of work exists on

hiring systems designed to select

applicants on the basis of attributes

predictive of performance and reten-

tion (Barrick & Zimmerman, 2009).

We seek to extend this framework

by identifying an individual dispo-

sition that, within certain contexts,

is predictive of engagement, which,

as noted earlier, has been identified

as an antecedent of both task and

contextual performance. Like selec-

tion processes, reward systems have

also garnered a great deal of research

attention in relation to attracting,

motivating, and retaining employ-

ees (Backes-Gellner & Pull, 2013;

Von Glinow, 1985). The degree of

competition among employees

for rewards directly relates to appraisal systems

and compensation structures and how decisions

regarding reward allocations are determined. It is

our contention that individual goal orientations

of employees will provide differentially better or

worse fit with varying levels of competitive work

environments, and this will directly affect their

level of engagement.

As noted by Johnson and Johnson (1989,

1999), competition is so widespread in the United

States that it has been referred to as “our state reli-

gion” and as “an American cultural addiction”

(Kohn, 1992, p. 2). Definitions of excellence often

involve performance comparisons in relation to