INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF LEARNING AND PERFORMANCE GOAL ORIENTATION ON TEAM CREATIVE EFFICACY AND NEW SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION

INVESTIGACIÓN DE LOS EFECTOS DEL APRENDIZAJE Y DE LA ORIENTACIÓN A LOS OBJETIVOS DE RENDIMIENTO SOBRE LA EFICACIA CREATIVA DEL EQUIPO Y EL RENDIMIENTO DEL DESARROLLO DE NUEVOS SERVICIOS EN LA ORGANIZACIÓN

Zafer Adiguzel (Istanbul Medipol University)*

Fatma Sonmez Cakir (Bartin University)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to analyze the relationships between the variables of learning goal orientation, performance goal orientation, executive support, team creative efficacy and new service development performance. A survey study was conducted with 592 employees working at organizations that operated in the production sector in the scope of the research purpose. The IBM SPSS 25 and IBM SPSS AMOS programs were used incrementally, and the acquired data were evaluated and analyzed. As a result of the analysis, it is emphasized that organizations should give importance to learning and performance especially because of their positive effects. Since the research is carried out on the employees in the production sector, it covers a specific sector in a specific field. The results of the research are applicable to the executive support and performances of the firms in the production sector in order to be more efficient. The research is original in terms of evaluating learning goal orientation and performance goal orientation in firms in the production sector.

Keywords: executive support, learning goal orientation, new service development performance, performance goal orientation, team creative efficacy, industry.

JEL code: M100, M510, M540, L250

Resumen

El propósito de este estudio era analizar las relaciones entre las variables de orientación a los objetivos de aprendizaje, orientación a los objetivos de rendimiento, apoyo ejecutivo, eficacia creativa del equipo y rendimiento del desarrollo de nuevos servicios. En el marco del propósito de la investigación, se realizó un estudio con 592 empleados que trabajaban en organizaciones que operaban en el sector de la producción. Se utilizaron los programas IBM SPSS 25 e IBM SPSS AMOS de forma incremental, y se evaluaron y analizaron los datos adquiridos. Como resultado del análisis, se destaca que las organizaciones deben dar importancia al aprendizaje y al rendimiento especialmente por sus efectos positivos. Dado que la investigación se realiza sobre los empleados del sector de la producción, abarca un sector específico en un ámbito concreto. Los resultados de la investigación son aplicables al apoyo ejecutivo y al rendimiento de las empresas del sector de la producción para que sean más eficaces. La investigación es original en cuanto a la evaluación de la orientación a los objetivos de aprendizaje y la orientación a los objetivos de rendimiento en las empresas del sector de la producción.

Palabras clave: apoyo a los directivos, orientación a los objetivos de aprendizaje, rendimiento en el desarrollo de nuevos servicios, orientación a los objetivos de rendimiento, eficacia creativa del equipo, industria.

Códigos JEL: M100, M510, M540, L250

1. INTRODUCTION

According to the study of Teece et al. (1997), learning remains a permanent change in behaviors as a result of experiences and repetitions. Organizational learning ability is defined as open and hidden resources or abilities that enterprises use to gain competitive advantage (Alegre & Chiva, 2008). Organizational learning can be defined as the continuous process of acquiring and organizing new information to keep pace with internal and external environmental changes and maintain its sustainable existence. Organizational learning ability, discovering the opportunities in the environment, environmental changes and knowledge, obtaining new ideas with this change and acquired knowledge, choosing the most appropriate in line with the ideas and information, implementing appropriate ideas, experiencing, learning from past experiences, providing feedback and providing this knowledge transfer, providing information from the environment and creating organizational memory can be considered as a structure consisting of activities and abilities. For this purpose, learning goal orientation and performance goal orientation are two important concepts examined in the research. In organizations, managers have significant effects on strengthening the behavior of employees. For example, executives give importance to the trainings that strengthen employees’ loyalty to the organization and contribute to their personal development in order to get better performance from the employees, at the same time ensure the participation of the employees in the decisions to be made, thereby encouraging the employees to share their ideas and opinions and providing positive feedback to increase their performance, The importance of sharing information within the company has a positive impact on the creativity of the employees as well as the possibility of developing new services (Srivastava et al., 2006). Through their policies, explanations and actions, managers formally give employees significant freedom and autonomy (Arnold et al., 2000). This helps employees develop a strong sense of autonomy and competence. In addition, giving value and importance to employees contributes to the development of strong personal commitment to the organization (Ahearne et al., 2005). The performance of the employees can be strengthened by the support of the executive and the establishment of high-quality relations, by providing important information input that is necessary for team creativity, which encourages trust among the team members (Mesmer-Mangus & DeChurch, 2009). Within the scope of the research model, the effects of learning in organizations and goal-oriented learning in terms of both employee and service development with the support of executive are examined.

2. LITERATURE

2.1. Learning goal orientation

There is a wide range of academic perspectives and rapidly growing interest in organizational learning in the literature. Along with the concept of organizational learning, learning organizations and organizational learning perspectives have become popular. Learning organizations; They are defined as organizations that constantly expand their capacity to create the results they really want, develop new thinking patterns, create common desires, and learn together by seeing people (Panayides, 2007). In organizations, because of the rapid depreciation of a stock of information that is not constantly updated, the organizational learning process should continue continuously and the information should be constantly updated (Jiménez-Jiménez & Cegarra-Navarro, 2007). Organizational learning is different from individual learning. First, organizations can learn faster because organizational learning reveals shared content, knowledge, and mental models. Second, learning from past knowledge and experience is also necessary. This is related to organizational memory, organizational memory depends on the industrial mechanism (Sinkula et al., 1997). Organizational learning; system thinking, planning, quality development, organizational behavior and information systems serves as an umbrella (Stata, 1989). Organizational learning is the production and use of information against competitors. Customer needs are created through the acquisition and sharing of information about market changes and the actions of competitors (Bolivar-Ramos et al., 2012). Learning orientation refers to the activity of creating and using information throughout the organization to increase the competitive advantage (Hult et al., 2003). Learning orientation affects what kind of information is collected and how it is interpreted, evaluated and shared. According to Cerasoli et al. (2014) stated in their research that individuals with learning goal orientation can show higher performance because they believe that they can improve their abilities. Lee et al. (2017) state that although learning goal orientation is believed to be positively related to performance in their research, empirical studies show inconsistent findings. At the same time, in the study conducted by Lim and Shin (2021), they state that there is no positive relationship between learning goal orientation and employee performance. Therefore, to gain a more comprehensive understanding, within the scope of the research model, the impact of learning goal orientation on both executive support and creativity of employees and service development process is examined.

2.2. Performance goal orientation

When a performance focus is identified, individual initiatives demonstrate the competence of employees in their task performance. From the perspective of learning orientation, it is possible to learn a new concept or increase personal development through individual efforts (Button et al., 1996). Performance-oriented is a concept that goes beyond the market where organizations are located (Porter, 2005). Employees in enterprises with a strong performance-oriented aim are constantly questioning the organizational norms that guide them while carrying out their activities (Zweig & Webster, 2004). In this context, the focus on performance increases the courage of the employees and reveals that more efforts should be made in order to achieve the determined goals. Performance-oriented businesses that proactively question their long-term assumptions, routines, and beliefs, deliberately try to abandon them and realize organizational change (Hirst et al., 2009). From this point of view, performance focus can be explained as an organizational feature that not only intelligently responds to environmental changes but also struggles with the assumptions regulating the relations of the enterprise with its environment. Commitment to learning was previously discussed in Senge’s (1990) learning principles studies, and the importance of commitment to learning was discussed in later studies (Sinkula et al., 1997). The value and cultural commitment to learning facilitates the creation of a positive climate in achieving the intended performance in the organization (Whitaker & Levy, 2012). In order to be successful in the outcomes of organizations, both learning and performance focus should be adopted. Cyert and March (1963) argue that organizational learning is a process and that organizations begin to learn by interacting with their environment. Argyris and Schön (1978) emphasized the importance of individuals for organizational learning and stated that individual learning is necessary but not sufficient for organizational learning. Senge (1992) emphasized the importance of shared mental models and stated that open-mindedness should be present in organizations to gain performance-oriented learning skills. Since employees can be motivated when their talents are rewarded with organizational incentives, employees who are focused on performance goal orientation will be able to do more useful work in the organization by getting the appreciation of their good work (Lu & Guy, 2019). This situation can positively affect the team’s creativity, that is, the working together of the employees, as well as positively affect the performance of new service development. Within the scope of the research model, the effects of performance goal orientation on both executive and team creative and new service development are analyzed.

2.3. Executive support

The concept of executive support is one of the sub-components of organizational support theory. The concept of organizational support is the interest that a business gives to its employees in terms of the value they contribute to their overall values and their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1986). In some studies, the concept of ’organizational support’ has been expressed as ’social support’ (LaRocco et al., 1980). Employees’ perception of the support they receive from their managers in return for their contribution to the organization and for their well-being is defined as executive support (Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988). Managers are both a stakeholder of the organization and representatives of the organization because of their proximity to employees (Gagnon & Michael, 2004). At the same time, managers have an important role in shaping the attitudes and behaviors of employees and the formation of organizational commitment (Tymon Jr. et al., 2011). When employees in organizations receive support from their managers, they see this as a duty by showing positive attitude and behavior to their organization (Kuvaas & Dysvik, 2010). It has been determined that organizational and individual performance is positively increased in enterprises where executive support is provided (DeConinck, 2010). Many inadequately or poorly designed applications can be recovered with good executive support; good human resources (HR) practice can be denied because of poor management or poor leadership. Since managers implement HR policies, it is accepted that executive support, job satisfaction and organizational commitment positively affect (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). The manager has a much greater role than the employee in increasing the commitment of the employee to the organization (Dysvik & Kuvaas, 2013). The manager should be aware of the employee’s ability and contribution, provide the necessary practices for empowering employees and manage their career plans in line with the employees’ goals. Executive support should also be effective in rewarding employee contributions. Due to the success of the employees, intangible awards should also be given and congratulated for their actions. Thus, employees have more positive feelings about their work (Thomas & Tymon Jr., 1997). Within this scope, the mediation variable effect of the concept of executive support in the research model is examined.

2.4. Team creative efficacy

The concept of team is a concept that has been frequently discussed and widely agreed upon in the literature. According to Tannebaum et al. (1996), the concept of team is a unit formed by the gathering of two or more individuals whose roles are clearly defined and working on the basis of mutual solidarity in order to achieve a common goal and purpose. In this definition, the most important emphasis is placed on the importance and necessity of mutual solidarity. A team is a structure of individuals who are locked in to a common goal and common performance goals and that have a common approach to the task they are responsible for and which have complementary features (Katzenbach & Smith, 2015). According to another definition, the team is the sum of the individuals who carry out their duties independently and share the responsibility of the results obtained (Cohen & Bailey, 1997). Teams are structures that involve much more than being together, owing their success to the ability of individuals to work together (Shin & Eom, 2014). In the literature of creativity, it is suggested that it is possible to “contribute to team creativity by increasing the motivation of team members (Shin & Zhou, 2007). Through interaction and socialization, team members develop a common belief in the team’s ability to produce new and creative ideas that contribute to the team (Ford, 1996). If a team has a strong common belief in creative outcomes, employees are more likely to take innovations as a result of persistence and persistence in trying different methods to solve difficult problems (Shin & Zhou, 2007). In situations where manpower and character are at the forefront, many factors affect performance (Hon & Chan, 2013). Performance targets set from the start raise team effectiveness and ensure that objectives are understandable, observable, and measurable (Dampérat et al., 2016). In this direction, the ongoing processes and the targets determined are controlled and the performance is increased through the necessary inputs. In this context, the concept of team creative efficacy, learning and performance goal orientation variables and how management support is examined are examined.

2.5. New service development performance

Service; it is a concept that includes the prerequisites for service delivery, customer outcomes and process (Matear et al., 2004). Service system resources generally; service company employees, customers, physical and technical environment, organization and control can be divided into sub-categories (Edvardsson & Olsson, 1996). A good understanding of the strategic factors such as new service development capacity, speed and efficiency make a significant contribution to company performance (Melton & Hartline, 2013). Information technology and service integration, which emerge with the concept of new economy, greatly accelerates the efforts to develop new services (Froehle et al., 2000). New services include increasing the profitability of existing products for companies; attracting new customers; increase existing customer loyalty; increasing the image of the company, creating a platform for future new products; creating market opportunities; offers a number of benefits such as changing the image of the company (Storey & Easingwood, 1999). In addition, the first service providers of the new service can obtain great technological benefits by preventing the proliferation of specific technological information through patent applications. However, new service development inventors who are successful in targeting and identifying the high potential market segment will be able to best meet the demands of the class and take advantage of being a pioneer against competitors. In order to provide continuity in services or to design new services, it is necessary to evaluate the level of success in existing services (Menor & Roth, 2008). In the new service development process, the active role of customers compared to new product development and the continuation of revisions along with customer feedback at every stage of the process is an important element that separates new service development from product-oriented developments. In the development of new services, taking into account this typical feature of the service, the service innovations to be addressed should be evaluated in this respect. The research model examines the effects of learning goal orientation, performance goal orientation and executive support on new service development performance.

2.6. Examining the relationships between the variables

In order to examine the relationships between the variables that make up the research model and to establish hypotheses, it should be supported by previous studies in the literature. In this context, when previous studies on variables were examined: Gong et al. (2009) stated that employee learning orientation is positively related to employee creativity in a study they conducted at an insurance company in Taiwan. Melton and Hartline (2013) state that as a result of the analysis of the surveys they collected from various companies in the service sectors, the organization’s learning orientation positively affects the effectiveness of new service development. Yee et al. (2013) emphasized that learning goal orientation has a positive and direct effect on service quality as a result of the analysis of data collected from 230 service companies in Hong Kong. However, Yee et al. (2013) stated in their study that there is no relationship between performance goal orientation and service quality. They assume that the reason for this is that there is no effect on service quality because employees do not have a long-term perspective in performance goal orientation, even if there is a desire and desire in the employees. Choi et al. (2014) state that there is a relationship between individual learning goal orientation and creative contribution of a group member in their research with data collected from undergraduate business students from a large university in North America. Bodouva (2016) emphasized that employee learning goal orientation and performance goal orientation affect the perceived service quality in their research as a result of the analysis of 184 questionnaires they collected from hotels. However, Shin et al. (2017) stated in their study on 68 student teams and 108 working teams in Korean companies that the learning and performance of teams are positively related to creative performance. At the same time, Ladeira et al. (2018) emphasize that the moderated effects of learning goal orientation and performance goal orientation are positive on behavioral performance in their research with data collected from sales representatives. As a result of these researches, hypotheses have been established in order to examine the effects of learning goal orientation and performance goal orientation on team creative efficacy and new service development performance. Some studies have been taken into account in order to establish hypotheses regarding the executive support variable, in which both the independent and mediator variable effects are examined. These; In research, Wajdi (2018) states that leaders with positive characteristics have positive effects if they support employee creativity. Zaitouni and Ouakouak (2018) state that there is a positive and significant relationship between leadership support and employee creativity as a result of the analysis of the questionnaires they collected from 299 employees working in eight different public and private organizations in Kuwait. Susskind et al. (2003) investigated the effects of setting service standards. They studied 354 service workers and 269 customers and found a positive relationship between setting service standards (including aspects of appreciation) and employees’ perceptions of leader support. As a result of these studies, hypotheses were established to examine the effects of the executive support variable.

Based on the literature review, a quantitative study was adopted since the analysis of data was a statistical case in order to examine the relationships between variables. In quantitative studies based on statistics, analysis methods are used to interpret the relationships between the variables examined. Within the framework of the research model (Figure 1), the relationships between variables are examined (Thomas et al. 2015).

FIGURE 1. RESEARCH MODEL

H1:Learning goal orientation has an impact on executive support.

H2:Learning goal orientation has an impact on team creative efficacy.

H3:Learning goal orientation has an impact on new service development performance.

H4:Performance goal orientation has an impact on executive support.

H5:Performance goal orientation has an impact on team creative efficacy.

H6:Performance goal orientation has an impact on new service development performance.

H7:Executive support has an impact on team creative efficacy.

H8:Executive support has an impact on new service development performance.

H9:There is an executive support mediation variable effect in the relationship between learning goal orientation and team creative efficacy.

H10:There is an executive support mediation variable effect in the relationship between learning goal orientation and new service development performance.

H11:There is an executive support mediation variable effect in the relationship between performance goal orientation and team creative efficacy.

H12:There is an executive support mediation variable effect in the relationship between performance goal orientation and new service development performance.

3. METHODOLOGY

Based on the literature review, learning goal orientation and performance goal orientation variables were independent; a research model was applied in which executive support was identified as mediation variable and team creative efficacy and new service development performance as dependent variable.

The purpose of the study, in this research, white collar employees working in the companies operating in the production sector; Emphasizing the importance of executive support, it is aimed to examine the effects of both goal-oriented and learning-oriented on the creativity of employees with executive support.

The survey was conducted on 603 employees working in different departments of the companies operating in Gebze/Kocaeli Industrial Zone in Turkey. The questionnaires were updated to 592 in the data mining and noise reduction stage of data mining. Eleven questionnaires that reduced the reliability of the scale were excluded from the measurement.

318 males and 274 females have answered the questionnaire. 24 per cent of the participants were in the 17-27 age group; 57 per cent are in the 28-40 age group. The number of managers over the age of 41 is 19 per cent. While 12 per cent of the employees answered the survey, 70 per cent were university graduates; 15 cent have master’s degree and 3 per cent have doctorate degree.

The survey included both demographic questions and questions measuring five variables. The questions measuring the hidden structure are presented as 5-point Likert questions. The internal consistency coefficients of the questionnaire were examined, and later, for Likert scale questions, factor analysis, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and correlation analysis were applied.

Structural equation modeling is a technique used to reveal hidden structure among variables. With this method, previously unknown structures between the data can be revealed or the suitability of the relationships approved by the literature can be analyzed (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993).

There are 5 variables representing the questionnaire. In literature studies, important studies which are referenced in many studies are taken into consideration: Learning goal orientation scale; Hult et al., (2003), Sinkula et al., (1997), Slater and Narver (1994). Performance goal orientation scale; Porter, (2005), Hirst et al., (2009), Zweig and Webster, (2004), Whitaker and Levy, (2012). Executive support scale; DeConinck, (2010), Gagnon and Michael, (2004), Dysvik and Kuvaas, (2013). Team creative efficacy scale; Dampérat et al., (2016), Shin and Eom, (2014), Shin and Zhou, (2007), Hon and Chan, (2013). New service development performance scale; Melton and Hartline, (2013), Menor and Roth, (2008), Matear et al., (2004).

4. ANALYSES

(LGO) variable 8, (PGO) variable 8, (ES) variable 11, (TCE) variable 4 and (NSP) variable consists of 5 questions. A 120-person pretest was conducted to determine the reliability of the scale and to determine the validity and reliability of the scale. In the scales included in the questionnaire, those with factor values above 0.45 were processed. First, the internal consistency coefficient of the questionnaire was measured. In this consistency measurement, the scale consisting of 36 questions was analyzed. The internal consistency coefficient is indicated by the Cronbach alpha value. Cronbach’s alpha = 0.964. It is preferred that this value is close to 1. In the literature, Nunnally (1978) stated that measurements with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.50 and above are considered sufficient (Nunnally, 1978; Büyüköztürk et al., 2017). After the pre-test, the scale was directed to the actual measurement. Factor analysis was conducted to investigate the construct validity of the scale. Büyüköztürk et al. (2017) defined factor analysis as a multivariate statistical method that aims to discover new variables (factors, dimensions) that are related to each other and that are conceptual and meaningful.

For the factor analysis performed in IBM SPSS 25 program, when KMO and Bartlett Tests test results were examined, it was found that the KMO value was .957 indicating the suitability of the data for factor analysis. The fact that KMO is higher than 900 is interpreted as “excellent” result (Tavşancıl 2002). While this value indicates that the data is suitable for analysis, the sig value of .000 (sig <0.05) at the Bartlett’s Test indicates that the data is also suitable for factor analysis. When the Total Variance Explain table in factor analysis was examined, it was seen that a structure with 5 factors explained 69.8 per cent of the structure that was wanted to be investigated. In order to bring the data set into a form that can be analyzed by factor analysis, 5 factors were formed as a result of the basic components analysis. Reliability coefficients for each variable are given in Table 1 below.

TABLE 1. RELIABILITY AND FACTORS STATISTICS

FACTORS

Number of Items

Cronbach Alpha (α) Values

Total Variance Explain

Kaiser Mayer Olkin

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity

LGO

5

.899

71.318

.873

.000

PGO

8

.940

70.439

.934

.000

ES

11

.947

65.696

.951

.000

TCE

4

.890

75.488

.830

.000

NSP

5

.854

63.442

.842

.000

All the variables that were formed as a result of factor analysis were subjected to factor analysis again as factor blocks. In this way, it is re-checked whether the questions of all factors are collected in only 1 factor. As a result of factor analysis, 3 questions were excluded from the scale as they did not show factor distribution or settled on different factors by decreasing reliability. The remaining 33 questions were divided into 5 factors. The determined variables were included in the AMOS program to test the model supported by the literature. Structural equation model is a method that tests hypotheses based on cause-effect and correlation relationships between observed and unobserved variables (Hoyle, 1995). Factors, factor loads, t and F scores according to the questions are given in Table 2.

TABLE 2. FACTOR LOADS

Items

Component

Factor Loads

Stand. Regr. Weight

t-Scores

ES1. My manager defends me against other people in the company if I make a mistake without knowing it.

.671

.773

21.54

ES2. My manager is someone I can trust when things come to a dead end.

.729

.819

23.51

ES3. My manager is always ready to listen to my business issues.

.665

.746

20.56

ES4. My manager makes me appreciate when I do something important in my work.

.538

.740

20.14

ES5. My manager takes my views into account.

.641

.778

21.92

ES6. My manager spares me time to learn about my goals and aspirations for my job.

.836

.792

23.37

ES7. My manager appreciates me when I do a good job.

.731

.803

23.24

ES8. My manager guides me through how to improve my performance.

.932

.833

26.15

ES9. My manager helps me do my job.

.875

.759

22.43

ES10. My manager defends his employees against others.

.890

.818

25.21

ES11. My manager takes care of my general situation such as health and happiness.

.907

.793

23.86

PG01. I prefer difficult tasks to easy tasks in the company where I work.

.802

.729

21.04

PGO2. I am most happy when I do things I didn’t make mistakes.

.792

.751

21.87

PGO3. Things I enjoy most, things I do successfully.

.888

.874

26.43

PGO4. It is important to me that other colleagues have an idea about how well I can do things.

.802

.829

24.33

PGO5. I feel smart when I do something without making mistakes.

.865

.823

24.02

PGO6. Before I try, I want to make sure I can accomplish a task.

.866

.851

25.37

PGO7. I love working on things I’ve done well in the past.

.840

.806

23.44

PGO8. I feel smart when I can do something better than my colleagues in the company I work for.

.786

.816

23.95

LGO1. In my company, the opportunity to do challenging jobs is important to me.

.675

.816

23.50

LGO2. In my company, I plan to try more next time if I do not fulfill a difficult task.

.820

.813

23.35

LGO3. In the company I work for, I prefer to work on things that force me to learn new things.

.909

.780

21.95

LGO4. In my company, the opportunity to learn new things is important to me.

.853

.799

22.69

LGO5. In the company I work for, I do my best while working on a rather difficult job.

.737

.795

22.61

TCE1. I trust my ability to solve problems creatively.

.873

.843

24.55

TCE2. I feel good at producing new ideas

.871

.834

24.21

TCE3. I will endeavor to improve the ideas of others.

.694

.805

22.91

TCE4. I’m good at finding creative ways to solve problems.

.863

.802

22.77

NSP1. Projects on all new service development speeds were very fast.

.636

.714

19.13

NSP2. In my company, the new service development program was very successful in meeting customer requirements.

.847

.685

18.10

NSP3. In my company, the new service development program was very successful in meeting the corporate profit targets.

.687

.805

22.67

NSP4. The new service development program outperforms the competition.

.693

.745

20.28

NSP5. In my company, the new service development program leads to future opportunities.

.661

.731

19.76

Learning Goal Orientation (LGO) and Performance Goal Orientation (PGO), Mediation variable; Executive Support (YD), Dependent Variables; Team Creative Efficacy (TCE) and New Service Development Performance (NSP)

The obtained factor loads and other data are presented in the order of the questions. Factor loads were taken from IBM SPSS 25 program and other data were taken from AMOS program. When the values of the standardized regression results were examined, no value below 0.50 was found. These values indicate that confirmatory factor analysis has appropriate results. In order to show the suitability of the model obtained as a result of factor analysis, fit indices were calculated. Model Fit: Generally considered values for model fit; GFI, CFI, NFI, IFI and RMSEA (İlhan & Çetin, 2014). The reported values may vary according to the values the researcher wants to draw attention to. The compliance values obtained for the model generated as a result of the confirmatory factor analysis are given in Table 3 below.

TABLE 3. GOODNESS FIT INDEX VALUE AND REFERENCE RANGES

Goodness of Fit Statistics

Value

Reference Values

Chi-Square (χ2)

1953.189

2<(χ2)/Df<5 good fit

Degrees of Freedom

485

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)

0.072

RMSEA<0.05 perfect fit

RMSEA<0.08 good fit

0,08=<RMSEA<0.10 mediocre fit

0.10=>RMSEA poor fit

Root Mean Square Residual (RMR)

0.035

RMR<0.05

Normed Fit Index (NFI)

0.97

NFI>0.95 good fit

Non-Normed Fit Index

0.97

NNFI>0.95 good fit

Comparative Fit Index (CFI)

0.98

CFI>0.95 good fit

Relative Fit İndex (RFI)

0.97

0<RFI<1 Close to 1 better fit

Goodness of Fit Index (GFI)

0.878

GFI>0.85

* Kline (2015), Schermelleh-Engel et al. (2003), Erkorkmaz et al. (2013), Tabachnick et al. (2007) and Hooper et al. (2008).

As a result of these procedures, suitable confirmatory factor analysis results were obtained for each of the scales supported by the literature. The construct validity of the scale can be seen through these values. Therefore, the validity of the 5-factor structure was revealed. Correlation analysis was performed to determine the degree of relationship between the factors. Mean and standard deviation values of five factors were determined and obtained values are given in Table 4.

TABLE 4. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND CORRELATION ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR EXISTING FACTORS.

Factors

Mean

Std. Dev.

Correlations

PGO

LGO

TCE

NSP

YD

4.14

.69

.576**

.647**

.666**

.677**

PGO

3.97

.85

-

.587**

.519**

.576**

LGO

4.34

.64

.587**

-

.484**

.580**

TCE

4.05

.82

.519**

.484**

-

.581**

NSP

4.03

.71

.576**

.580**

.581**

-

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

After the factorization studies and the determination of the factors, the testing of the research model was started. Firstly, regression analysis was performed according to dependent-independent relationships between variables. With this analysis, the mathematical model of the relationship between the factors is established. Linear regression analysis was performed for the hypotheses listed below.

H1:Learning goal orientation has an impact on executive support.

H2:Learning goal orientation has an impact on team creative efficacy.

H3:Learning goal orientation has an impact on new service development performance.

H4:Performance goal orientation has an impact on executive support.

H5:Performance goal orientation has an impact on team creative efficacy.

H6:Performance goal orientation has an impact on new service development performance.

H7:Executive support has an impact on team creative efficacy.

H8:Executive support has an impact on new service development performance.

Adjusted R Square values showing how much the independent variable explains the change in the dependent variable and F Value values showing whether the model is significant as a whole, calculated Sig values, standardized β values of the models are given in Table 5. According to the results obtained all sig. All hypotheses were accepted since their values were less than 0.01. There is a relationship between the given variables. These relationships were also proved by the significant correlation coefficients given in Table 4. According to the results, the regression equations are meaningful as a whole and all hypotheses are accepted.

TABLE 5. REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS OF IMPACT OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLES ON DEPENDENT VARIABLES

H

Indept. Variables

Dept. Variables

Sth. β

Sig.

Adjusted R Square

F Value

Reject/Accept

H1

LGO

ES

.647

.000

.417

424.100

Accept

H2

LGO

TCE

.484

.000

.233

180.146

Accept

H3

LGO

NSP

.580

.000

.335

298.981

Accept

H4

PGO

ES

.576

.000

.331

293.549

Accept

H5

PGO

TCE

.519

.000

.268

216.973

Accept

H6

PGO

NSP

.576

.000

.330

292.410

Accept

H7

YD

TCE

.666

.000

.442

469.442

Accept

H8

YD

NSP

.667

.000

.458

500.166

Accept

H9:There is an executive support mediation variable effect in the relationship between learning goal orientation and team creative efficacy.

H10:There is an executive support mediation variable effect in the relationship between learning goal orientation and new service development performance.

H11:There is an executive support mediation variable effect in the relationship between performance goal orientation and team creative efficacy.

H12:There is an executive support mediation variable effect in the relationship between performance goal orientation and new service development performance.

TABLE 6. THE EFFECT OF THE MEDIATION VARIABLE ACCORDING TO REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS

H

Indepen. Variables

Depen. Variables

Sth. β

Sig.

Adj. R Square

F Value

Sobel Test Stat.

Sobel P-Value

Reject/Accept

H9

LGO

TCE

.091

.000

.446

238.978

12.08***

.000

Accept

ES

.607

H10

LGO

NSP

.244

.000

.492

286.834

11.24***

.000

Accept

ES

.520

H11

PGO

TCE

.202

.000

.469

261.509

11.40***

.000

Accept

ES

.549

H12

PGO

NSP

.277

.000

.509

306.740

11.12***

.000

Accept

ES

.517

The hypotheses H9, H10, H11, and H12 were designed to measure the effect of the moderator support variable among the other variables. For the existence of a mediation variable according to Baron and Kenny (1986);

The change in the independent variable should cause the change in the dependent variable,

The change in the mediation variable should cause the change in the dependent variable,

The effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable should be decreased or disappeared when the variable is also considered as an independent variable.

If the effect of the independent variables on the dependent variable is completely eliminated, the term full mediation variable is used. If the effect of the independent variables on the dependent variable does not disappear completely, but it decreases, there are other factors that have the effect of a mediation variable, and in this case the term partial mediation variable is used (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

Interobserver effect measurement with sobel test; Apart from the analysis of the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, there is also the effect of the measured variable between the independent and dependent variables. It is necessary to determine whether the indirect effect of the mediation variable is significant. Various tests have been developed to determine this. One of these is the Sobel test. Sobel (1982) test is calculated using the uncorrected regression coefficients and standard error values of the related variables. These criteria are used informally to assess the mediation effect, but MacKinnon et al. (1995) have used statistical-based methods in which the mediation variable can be formally assessed. There are two main versions of the "Sobel test". These; It was built by Aroian in 1947 and Goodman in 1960. Analysis results are shown in Table 7.

TABLE 7. SOBEL TEST ANALYSIS RESULTS

Analysis of the mediation variable effect of executive support with sobel test in the relationship between learning goal orientation and team creative efficacy;

Variable

Input:

Test statistic:

Std. Error:

p-value:

IV

Learning goal orientation

a

0.697

Sobel test:

12.083

0.041

0.000

MV

Executive Support

b

0.718

Aroian test:

12.074

0.041

0.000

Sa

0.034

Goodman test:

12.092

0.041

0.000

DV

Team creative efficacy

Sb

0.048

Analysis of the mediation variable effect of executive support with sobel test in relationship between learning goal orientation and new service development performance;

Variable

Input:

Test statistic:

Std. Error:

p-value:

IV

Learning goal orientation

a

0.697

Sobel test:

11.245

0.033

0.000

MV

Executive Support

b

0.538

Aroian test:

11.236

0.033

0.000

Sa

0.034

Goodman test:

11.254

0.033

0.000

DV

New service development Performance

Sb

0.040

Analysis of the mediation variable effect of executive support with sobel test in the relationship between performance goal orientation and team creative efficacy;

Variable

Input:

Test statistic:

Std. Error:

p-value:

IV

Performance goal orientation

a

0.468

Sobel test:

11.402

0.026

0.000

MV

Executive Support

b

0.651

Aroian test:

11.391

0.026

0.000

Sa

0.027

Goodman test:

11.413

0.026

0.000

DV

Team creative efficacy

Sb

0.043

Analysis of the mediation variable effect of executive support with sobel test in relationship between performance goal orientation and new service development performance;

Variable

Input:

Test statistic:

Std. Error:

p-value:

IV

Performance goal orientation

a

0.468

Sobel test:

11.115

0.022

0.000

MV

Executive Support

b

0.536

Aroian test:

11.104

0.022

0.000

Sa

0.027

Goodman test:

11.126

0.022

0.000

DV

New service development Performance

Sb

0.037

If p-value is less than <0.05, we can explain that there is a mediation effect.

IV: Independent Variable

MV: Mediation Variable

DV: Dependent Variable

5. DISCUSSION

Uncertainty and dynamism in the business world and the business environment have increased competition to an even more severe level in recent years. For this reason, businesses are interested in how to use their resources and abilities more effectively and effectively than their competitors, how they can learn and improve them. Management literature focuses on learning as a key concept; It is stated that learning enables organizations to gain effectiveness, provide competitive advantage, and increase organizational performance, making it possible to survive in markets where tight competition prevails (Ussahawanitchakit, 2008). For employees who are responsible for dealing with customers one-on-one, they often have to deal with unpredictable customer requests. In such a situation, it would not be surprising that learning-oriented employees who want to improve themselves and strive to be qualified provide better service to customers (Dweck, 2000). As a result of the research, the support of the executive together with the learning orientation affects team creativity positively, but also service development is also positively affected. Team leadership is at the pinnacle of some important developments. These forward-looking developments are essentially contributions to the team and leadership literature. Although major steps have been taken in these areas in recent years, there has been relatively little work on how changes affect team leadership (Day et al., 2006). The leader, who is capable of planning, is responsible for organizing the team to achieve its goals and the quality of the results achieved. In order to achieve results quickly, leaders must provide continuous and regular feedback on teams. Regardless of the results of the teams’ performance, they should be shared with the team members. Feedback is based on effective communication between the team leader and members. The success of the team contributes to the leader and the success of the leader contributes significantly to the success of the business (Özler & Koparan, 2006). As a result of the research, Kossek et al. (2011) show that executive support has a direct positive effect on employee creativity. By examining the impact of executive support on employee creativity, it helps to explain the role of executive in enhancing employee creativity, including in terms of providing an appropriate environment (Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Executive and creativity therefore seem to be inextricably linked (Castro et al., 2012). Along with the positive effect of executive support on team creativity, this situation also reflects positively on new service development performance. An effective team leader performs the division of tasks effectively, distributes resources in a balanced way, ensures communication between members, improves the skills of team members, effectively manages conflicts, and applies a shared decision-making approach. Studies show that the characteristics of the team leader have a significant effect on the working climate and in-team learning (Sarin & McDermott, 2003). In order to be able to perform teamwork and perform effectively, as mentioned earlier, the personality traits of managers should be prone to teamwork. Managers need to be able to make a division of labor to their subordinates and to follow the work done. This approach will enable the manager to use time efficiently and reduce the workload. In addition, the task given to the team member will strengthen the sense of trust that will increase employee satisfaction.

6. CONCLUSION

It is emphasized that learning versatility is an important ability to develop relationships with customers in the long run (Santos-Vijande et al., 2005). Organizations acquire knowledge in the process of organizational learning and knowledge is a strategic entity. At the heart of the organization’s learning orientation is the value it places on learning. The value given to learning by the organization determines the tendency of the organization to a learning culture. Calantone et al. (2002) stated that learning orientation leads to competitive advantage by generating and using information. As a result of the research, companies can gain an advantage over competitors as learning and performance goal orientation positively affect team creativity and new service development performance. Looking at the explanations for learning orientation in literature, Farrell et al. (2008) defined learning orientation as the ability to acquire, disseminate and use information. Sinkula et al. (1997) provided the most popular conceptualization of learning orientation and defined learning orientation as a set of organizational values that affect an organization’s ability to create and use knowledge. For this reason, it can be stated that learning and performance goal orientation is important for companies and companies should implement these two concepts by considering them. The creativity literature emphasizes the importance of leadership to creativity and team results (Tierney, 2008). According to the theory of self-determination (Gagné & Deci, 2005), creative teams work best when they are capable of autonomy and decision-making. There are also important reasons to expect that strengthening leadership will positively influence team creativity. In this situation, it is possible for employees who feel the support of the executive to engage in creative activities, and it is also possible for them to be active in developing new services. When look at the results of the analysis, it shows that the support of the hypotheses is very important in organizational structures. However, while the performance of each team can be variable, the performance of a team in each job cannot be the same. Organizational learning is only possible if there is a change that leads to organizational effectiveness. Although Friedlander (1983) argues that learning may not necessarily lead to visible changes in behavior, but only changes in understanding, Fiol and Lyles (1985) emphasize the need for behavioral change for learning to occur. Learning-oriented businesses can develop new meanings from market knowledge, but this new knowledge needs to be managed by appropriate processes to turn it into desired outcomes. Creative ideas are created by questioning existing intellectual models, open-mindedness and shared vision. As a result, businesses can control themselves by gathering feedback to understand how alternative activities can produce different results and to make further improvements while implementing new models. It should be remembered that each employee is the internal customer of the enterprise where he works. Improving the total quality of products and services delivered to external customers can only be realized with more satisfied internal customers. Taking into account the different views in different functions, high quality and innovation are created, which requires a high level of learning versatility. Since the research was conducted in the gebze organized industrial zone of the city of Kocaeli, one of the important industrial cities of Turkey, the researchers may not get the same result if they carry out their research in different sectors, taking this into account. However, in order to contribute to the literature in future research, it is definitely recommended to conduct research with face-to-face interviews or case studies in companies that have education and development or academy departments apart from human resources departments.

REFERENCES

Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied psychology, 90(5), 945. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.945

Alegre, J., & Chiva, R. (2008). Assesing The Impact Of Organizational Learning Capability On Product Innovation Performance: An Empirical Test. Technovation, 28, 315-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.09.003

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering leadership questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(3), 249-269. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200005)21:3%3C249::AID-JOB10%3E3.0.CO;2-%23

Aroian, L. A. (1947). The probability function of the product of two normally distributed variables. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 265-271. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177730442

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Bodouva, J. J. (2016). The Influence of Employee Goal Orientations and Employee Self-Efficacy on Perceived Service Quality. International Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 8(2), 37-51.

Bolivar-Ramos, M. T., GarcíA-Morales, V. J., & GarcíA-SáNchez, E. (2012). Technological distinctive competencies and organizational learning: Effects on organizational innovation to improve firm performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 29(3), 331-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2012.03.006

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. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0063

Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Atıf İndeksi, 1-360. https://doi.org/10.14527/9789944919289

Calantone, J. R., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning Orientation, Firm Innovation Capabity, And Firm Performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31, 515-524. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(01)00203-6

Castro, F., Gomes, J., & de Sousa, F. C. (2012). Do intelligent leaders make a difference? The effect of a leader’s emotional intelligence on followers’ creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(2), 171-182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2012.00636.x

Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 980-1008. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035661

Choi, J. N., Sung, S. Y., & Cho, T. S. (2014). Creative contribution of individuals in groups: Effects of goal orientation and participative safety. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 42(3), 407-422. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.3.407

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(3), 239-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639702300303

Cyert, R. M., & James, G. M. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Dampérat, M., Jeannot, F., Jongmans, E., & Jolibert, A. (2016). Team creativity: Creative self-efficacy, creative collective efficacy and their determinants. Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition), 31(3), 6-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/2051570716650164

Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2006). Leadership in team-based organizations: On the threshold of a new era. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 211-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.001

DeConinck, J. B. (2010). The effect of organizational justice, perceived organizational support, and perceived supervisor support on marketing employees’ level of trust. Journal of business research, 63(12), 1349-1355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.01.003

Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development. Psychology Press, Philadelphia, PA.

Dysvik, A., & Kuvaas, B. (2013). Perceived job autonomy and turnover intention: The moderating role of perceived supervisor support. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(5), 563-573. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.667215

Edvardsson, B., & Olsson, J. (1996). Key concepts for new service development. Service Industries Journal, 16(2), 140-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069600000019

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied psychology, 71(3), 500. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500

Erkorkmaz, Ü., Etikan, İ., Demir, O., Özdamar, K., & Sanisoğlu, S. Y. (2013). Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve uyum indeksleri. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Medical Sciences, 33(1), 210-223. https://doi.org/10.5336/medsci.2011-26747

Farrell, M. A., Oczkowski, E., & Kharabsheh, R. (2008). Market orientation, learning orientation and organizational performance in international joint ventures. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 20(3), 289-308. https://doi.org/10.1108/13555850810890066

Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10(10), 803-813. https://doi.org/10.2307/258048

Ford, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management review, 21(4), 1112-1142. https://doi.org/10.2307/259166

Friedlander, F. (1983). Patterns of individual organizational learning. In S. Srivastava and Associates (Eds.), The Executive Mind: New Insights on Managerial Thought and Action (pp. 192-220). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Froehle, C. M., Roth, A. V., Chase, R. B., & Voss, C. A. (2000). Antecedents of new service development effectiveness: an exploratory examination of strategic operations choices. Journal of Service Research, 3(1), 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050031001

Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational behavior, 26(4), 331-362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322

Gagnon, M. A., & Michael, J. H. (2004). Outcomes of perceived supervisor support for wood production employees. Forest Products Journal, 54(12).

Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of management Journal, 52(4), 765-778. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.43670890

Goodman, L. A. (1960). On the exact variance of products. Journal of the American statistical association, 55(292), 708-713. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1960.10483369

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(2), 280-293. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.37308035

Hon, A. H., & Chan, W. W. (2013). Team creative performance: The roles of empowering leadership, creative-related motivation, and task interdependence. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(2), 199-210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965512455859

Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Articles, 2.

Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Sage.

Hult, G. T. M., Snow, C. C., & Kandemir, D. (2003). The role of entrepreneurship in building cultural competitiveness in different organizational types. Journal of management, 29(3), 401-426. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00017-5

İlhan, M., & Çetin, B. (2014). LISREL ve AMOS programları kullanılarak gerçekleştirilen yapısal eşitlik modeli (yem) analizlerine ilişkin sonuçların karşılaştırılması. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 5(2), 26-42. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.31126

Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Cegarra-Navarro, J. G. (2007). The performance effect of organizational learning and market orientation. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(6), 694-708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2006.02.008

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

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2015). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. Harvard Business Review Press.

Kline, T. (2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483385693

Kossek, E. E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T., & Hammer, L. B. (2011). Workplace social support and work-family conflict: A meta-analysis clarifying the influence of general and work-family-specific supervisor and organizational support. Personnel psychology, 64(2), 289-313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01211.x

Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Educational and psychological Measurement, 48(4), 1075-1079. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164488484024

Kuvaas, B., & Dysvik, A. (2010). Exploring alternative relationships between perceived investment in employee development, perceived supervisor support and employee outcomes. Human Resource Management Journal, 20(2), 138-156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2009.00120.x

Ladeira, W. J., de Oliveira Santini, F., da Costa, J. R. A., & Ribeiro, L. E. S. (2018). Strategic orientation for failure recovery and performance behavior. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 36(6), 646-660. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-07-2017-0130

LaRocco, J. M., House, J. S., & French Jr, J. R. (1980). Social support, occupational stress, and health. Journal of health and Social Behavior, 202-218. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136616

Lee, S., Cheong, M., Kim, M., & Yun, S. (2017). Never too much? The curvilinear relationship between empowering leadership and task performance. Group & Organization Management, 42, 11-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601116646474

Lim, H. S., & Shin, S. Y. (2021). Effect of learning goal orientation on performance: Role of task variety as a moderator. Journal of Business and Psychology, 36(5), 871-881. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09705-4

Lu, X., & Guy, M. E. (2019). Emotional labor, performance goal orientation, and burnout from the perspective of conservation of resources: A United States/China comparison. Public Performance & Management Review, 42(3), 685-706. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2018.1507916

MacKinnon, D. P., Warsi, G., & Dwyer, J. H. (1995). A simulation study of mediated effect measures. Multivariate behavioral research, 30(1), 41-62. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3001_3

Matear, S., Gray, B. J., & Garrett, T. (2004). Market orientation, brand investment, new service development, market position and performance for service organisations. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 15(3), 284-301. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230410540944

Melton, H. L., & Hartline, M. D. (2013). Employee collaboration, learning orientation, and new service development performance. Journal of Service Research, 16(1), 67-81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670512462139

Menor, L. J., & Roth, A. V. (2008). New service development competence and performance: an empirical investigation in retail banking. Production and Operations Management, 17(3), 267-284. https://doi.org/10.3401/poms.1080.0034

Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & De Church, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 535. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013773

Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill

Özler, D. E., & Koparan, E. (2006). Takım performansına etki eden takım çalışmasına ilişkin faktörlerin belirlenmesine yönelik bir araştırma. Akademik Bakış, 8, 1-29.

Panayides, P. M. (2007). The Impact of Organizational Learning on Relationship Orientation, Logistics Service Effectiveness and Performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 36, 68-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.07.001

Porter, C. O. (2005). Goal orientation: effects on backing up behavior, performance, efficacy, and commitment in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 811. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.811

Purcell, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2007). Front-line managers as agents in the HRM-performance causal chain: theory, analysis and evidence. Human Resource management journal, 17(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2007.00022.x

Santos-Vijande, M. L., Sanzo-Perez, M. J., Alvarez-Gonzalez, L. I., & Vazquez-Casielles, R. (2005). Organizational learning and market orientation: interface and effects on performance. Industrial marketing management, 34(3), 187-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2004.08.004

Sarin, S., & Mc Dermott, C. (2003). The effect of team leader characteristics on learning, knowledge application, and performance of cross-functional new product development teams. Decision sciences, 34(4), 707-739. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5414.2003.02350.x

Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of psychological research online, 8(2), 23-74.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

Senge, P. M. (1992). Mental models. Planning Review, 20(2), 4-44. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb054349

Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of applied Psychology, 92(6), 1709. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1709

Shin, Y., & Eom, C. (2014). Team proactivity as a linking mechanism between team creative efficacy, transformational leadership, and risk-taking norms and team creative performance. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 48(2), 89-114. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.42

Shin, Y., Kim, M., & Lee, S. H. (2017). Reflection toward creativity: Team reflexivity as a linking mechanism between team goal orientation and team creative performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(6), 655-671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9462-9

Sinkula, J. M., Baker, W. E., & Noordewier, T. (1997). Fall a framework for market based organizational learning: Linking values, knowledge and behavior. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 305-318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070397254003

Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1994). Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation-performance relationship?. Journal of marketing, 58(1), 46-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800104

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological methodology, 13, 290-312. https://doi.org/10.2307/270723

Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of management journal, 49(6), 1239-1251. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.23478718

Stata, R. (1989). Organizational Learning; The Key To Management Innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 12 (1), 63-74.

Storey, C., & Easingwood, C. J. (1999). Types of new product performance: Evidence from the consumer financial services sector. Journal of Business Research, 46(2), 193-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(98)00022-8

Susskind, A.M., Kacmar, K.M., & Borchgrevink, C.P. (2003). Customer service providers’ attitudes relating to customer service and customer satisfaction in the customer-server exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 197-187. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.179

Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). Promoting team effectiveness. Handbook of work group psychology, 503-529.

Tavşancıl, E. (2002). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Nobel Yayıncılık, Ankara.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (7), 509-533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7%3C509::AID-SMJ882%3E3.0.CO;2-Z

Thomas, J. R., Nelson, J. K., & Silverman, S. J. (2015). Research methods in physical activity. Human kinetics.

Thomas, K. W., & Tymon Jr, W. G. (1997). Bridging the motivation gap in total quality. Quality Management Journal, 4(2), 80-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10686967.1997.11918787

Tierney, P. (2008). Leadership and employee creativity. Handbook of organizational creativity, 95-123.

Tymon Jr, W. G., Stumpf, S. A., & Smith, R. R. (2011). Manager support predicts turnover of professionals in India. Career Development International, 16(3), 293-312. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431111140174

Ussahawanitchakit, P. (2008). Impacts of organizational learning on innovation orientation and firm efficiency: an empirical assessment of accounting firms in Thailand. International Journal of Business Research, 8(4), 1-12.

Wajdi, F. (2018). Leadership Support and Employee Creativity: A Meta-Analysis. Jurnal Optimasi Sistem Industri, 17(1), 55-63. https://doi.org/10.25077/josi.v17.n1.p55-63.2018

Whitaker, B. G., & Levy, P. (2012). Linking feedback quality and goal orientation to feedback seeking and job performance. Human Performance, 25(2), 159-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2012.658927

Yee, R. W., Lee, P. K., Yeung, A. C., & Cheng, T. E. (2013). The relationships among leadership, goal orientation, and service quality in high-contact service industries: An empirical study. International Journal of Production Economics, 141(2), 452-464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.12.012

Zaitouni, M., & Ouakouak, M. L. (2018). The impacts of leadership support and coworker support on employee creative behavior. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 67(9), 1745-1763. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-10-2017-0264.

Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of management journal, 53(1), 107-128. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.48037118

Zweig, D., & Webster, J. (2004). What are we measuring? An examination of the relationships between the big-five personality traits, goal orientation, and performance intentions. Personality and individual differences, 36(7), 1693-1708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.07.010

_______________________________

* Autor de correspondencia. Email: zadiguzel@medipol.edu.tr

Fecha de envío: 24/06/2021. Fecha de aceptación: 24/02/2022.