A Meta-Analytic Examination of the Goal Orientation Nomological Net Stephanie C. Payne and Satoris S. Youngcourt Texas A&M University J. Matthew Beaubien Aptima, Inc. The authors present an empirical review of the literature concerning trait and state goal orientation (GO). Three dimensions of GO were examined: learning, prove performance, and avoid performance along with presumed antecedents and proximal and distal consequences of these dimensions. Antecedent variables included cognitive ability, implicit theory of intelligence, need for achievement, self-esteem, general self-efficacy, and the Big Five personality characteristics. Proximal consequences included state GO, task-specific self-efficacy, self-set goal level, learning strategies, feedback seeking, and state anxiety. Distal consequences included learning, academic performance, task performance, and job performance. Generally speaking, learning GO was positively correlated, avoid performance GO was negatively correlated, and prove performance GO was uncorrelated with these variables. Consistent with theory, state GO tended to have stronger relationships with the distal consequences than did trait GO. Finally, using a meta-correlation matrix, the authors found that trait GO predicted job performance above and beyond cognitive ability and personality. These results demonstrate the value of GO to organizational researchers. Keywords: trait goal orientation, state goal orientation, meta-analysis, self-regulation, job performance Recent years have witnessed a substantial body of research concerning relationships among traitlike motivational characteris- tics and measures of performance. One variable that has received a great deal of attention in organizational research is goal orien- tation (GO). GO refers to one’s dispositional or situational goal preferences in achievement situations. Originating in the educa- tional psychology literature, organizational psychology research- ers have proposed that GO plays an important role in a variety of human resources decisions, such as recruitment (e.g., Rynes & Gerhart, 1990), selection (e.g., L. Roberson & Alsua, 2002), train- ing (e.g., K. G. Brown, 2001), and performance appraisal (e.g., VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997). GO also appears to play an important role in other work-related topics such as organizational climate and culture (e.g., Potosky & Ramakrishna, 2002), organi- zational change (e.g., Gully & Phillips, 2005), leadership (e.g., Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004), and team building (e.g., Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003). As organizational researchers have incorporated GO into their work, several questions have emerged (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005). The purpose of this study was to answer the following questions: What is the stability of trait GO over time? To what extent are the dimensions of trait and state GO interrelated? How similar is GO to other individual differences? How well do GO dimensions predict various self-regulatory constructs? Does GO predict job performance above and beyond well-established pre- dictors? We addressed these questions by meta-analyzing the relationships among GO dimensions and key variables of interest. By answering these questions, we believe this quantitative review provides the groundwork for future theoretical advancement. GO History The concept of GO was independently conceived by educational psychologists during the 1970s and 1980s. In an attempt to apply Atkinson’s (1964) theory of achievement motivation to the class- room, Eison (1979) described students as possessing either learn- ing or grade orientations. According to Eison, a learning orienta- tion was the predominant attitude held by students who approached college as an opportunity to acquire knowledge and obtain personal and educational enlightenment. Conversely, a grade orientation was the predominant attitude held by students who viewed obtaining a high course grade as an end in itself (Eison, 1979). Eison (1979) developed the Learning Orientation– Grade Orientation Scale to assess these orientations. These two orientations were originally conceptualized as opposite ends of an underlying continuum. However, Eison later reconceptualized them as being independent and revised his measure accordingly (Learning Orientation–Grade Orientation Scale II; Eison, Pollio, & Milton, 1982). Around the same time, Nicholls (1975, 1976, 1978) was study- ing achievement motivation to identify the conditions under which grade school children would set excessively high or low task- Stephanie C. Payne and Satoris S. Youngcourt, Department of Psychol- ogy, Texas A&M University; J. Matthew Beaubien, Aptima, Inc., Woburn, Massachusetts. A previous version of this article was presented at the 14th Annual Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, April 1999. We thank Winfred Arthur Jr., Gilad Chen, Jose Cortina, Sandy Fisher, Stan Gully, and Joe Martocchio for their comments on previous versions of this article. We also thank Rachel Dunlap, Renee Hall, Amanda Halverson, Leigh Henderson, Shannon Lemon, and Cecilia Prause for their administrative assistance. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Stephanie C. Payne, Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University, 4235 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4235. E-mail: scp@psyc .tamu.edu Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association 2007, Vol. 92, No. 1, 128 –150 0021-9010/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.128 128