Article

Military-Madrasa-Mullah
A Global Threat Complex 43
43

Learning Orientation and Performance Global Business Review

14(1) 43–54
Orientation: Scale Development and © 2013 IMI
SAGE Publications
Its Relationship with Performance Los Angeles, London,
New Delhi, Singapore,
Washington DC
DOI: 10.1177/0972150912466443
http://gbr.sagepub.com

Sumi Jha
Som Sekhar Bhattacharyya

Abstract
Education has become an important factor determining the progress of individual human beings and
human society. Education provides knowledge and develops the skills and abilities to perform various
socio-economic tasks. Learning is an important part of education. Learning orientation (LO) and per-
formance orientation (PO) have an impact on acquiring knowledge and its subsequent application for
performing tasks. This research is based on a structured survey questionnaire personally administered
to 220 graduate engineering students in India. To develop a scale for learning orientation and perform-
ance orientation, exploratory factor analysis and the appropriate reliability and validity tests were con-
ducted. The relationship between learning orientation and performance orientation on performance
was studied using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Respondents were grouped into high and low PO and
LO groups and their performance was analyzed for inter-group differences. The group differences were
not significant.

Keywords
Learning orientation, performance orientation, performance

Introduction
India will be the last big nation, by the middle of the twenty-first century, to experience a demographic
transition. By 2040, the median age of an Indian would be 38 years. Currently 65 per cent is the working
population (15–64 years of age) of India (Shah et al., 2008). This provides enormous scope for manda-
tory school education, professional education and continuing executive education (Shah et al., 2008).
Education has contributed significantly towards the economic development of India. Given the demo-
graphic profile of India and its comparative position in the world, there is a healthy scope for the growth
of the education market in India. The success of formal and other means of education is dependent on the
extent of learning. Learning provides the scope for development of knowledge and skill-sets to perform
socio-economic tasks. The effectiveness of learning in information technology (IT) has helped India

Sumi Jha is Assistant Professor at National Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE), Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
E-mail: sumijha05@gmail.com
Som Sekhar Bhattacharyya is Assistant Professor at National Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE),
Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. E-mail: somdata@gmail.com India Quarterly, 66, 2 (2010): 133–149
44 Sumi Jha and Som Sekhar Bhattacharyya

become an IT superpower with above two million people engaged in this sector in the last two decades.
Academic performance is seen as an important input of recruitment by professional organizations as well
as being viewed as a measure of intelligence (Dessler, 2007). Research has indicated that an individual’s
academic performance is determined by the orientation of the individual. There are three kinds of orien-
tation in the academic arena—learning orientation, performance orientation and work avoidance orienta-
tion (Meece et al., 1988; Meece and Holt, 1993).
In this study, and as reflected in the research literature, learning orientation stands for an individual’s
inclination to seek knowledge (Dweck and Leggett, 1988; Kohli et al., 1998). Performance orientation
(Dweck and Leggett, 1988) stands for an individual’s orientation to complete an assigned task within the
given conditions and work avoidance orientation stands for the individual’s inclination to avoid working
because of the fear of failure (Meece and Holt, 1993). Performance stands for actual performance score
in an exam. Researchers have figured out that different goal orientations reflect differently on education
performance (Ames, 1992; Ames and Archer, 1988; Valle et al., 2003). Researchers have indicated that
students with learning orientations show better educational performance (Fortune et al., 2005). Kohli
et al. (1998) have hypothesized that sales personnel having high learning orientations are expected to use
self-regulation strategies, which help in developing skills and knowledge, and thereby improving per-
formance. Another hypothesis postulated is that employees with high performance orientations are more
concerned with the outcome (rewards) and they are also expected to show improved performance (Kohli
et al., 1998). Of the above two hypotheses, the one about learning orientation could not be substantiated
by the researchers. The differences in findings for students and for employees indicate the need for fur-
ther research in the area of learning orientation and performance orientation. Researchers believe that the
area of learning orientation and performance orientation has been less researched (Laverie et al., 2008).
In this article, the authors have attempted to review the existing literature extensively and develop a scale
for learning and performance orientation measures for students. The authors grouped students’ scores
into high and low learning orientation and performance orientation and further studied the inter-group
differences with six different performance scores spread across a minimum of six years. The authors did
not study work avoidance orientation because the contribution of a work avoidance oriented individual
is significantly less than that of a learning-oriented individual and a performance-oriented individual
towards performance (Redmond et al., 1993).

Literature Review—Learning Orientation and Performance Orientation

Learning orientation (Kohli et al., 1998) is the world view that an individual carries to explore new facets
of topics and techniques. Individuals with learning orientation demonstrate the perseverance to learn
over a long period of time about a topic and its techniques and gain expertise. A learning-orientated
student would get intrinsic motivation to expand his/her horizon of knowledge. Knowledge seeking for
a learning-orientated student is a worthy pursuit, and knowledge is treasured. The knowledge gathered
often reaches far beyond the boundaries of subject required for day-to-day academic and scholastic per-
formance. Teachers generally prefer students to have more learning orientation (Ames, 1992; Laverie
et al., 2008). This is because performance orientation is perceived negatively and learning orientation is
seen positively, contributing to creativity and innovativeness (Calantone et al., 2002).

Global Business Review, 14, 1 (2013): 43–54

Learning Orientation and Performance Orientation 45

A performance-orientated student is more concerned about his/her performance. The measure of

rewards plays an important role in the motivation of the student for learning. The performance-oriented
student would seek to perform and accomplish those tasks for which there are quick rewards. Immediacy
between effort and reward is important. Such performance-oriented students would also be interested in
seeking tangible gains rather than gaining intangibles (Roebken, 2007). The tangible gains provide per-
formance-oriented students a scale to compare relative performance with others. This relative superior
performance is also a measure to communicate their success to their teachers, friends and family mem-
bers. For a performance-oriented student, it is very important to be identified by others as successful. A
performance-oriented student budgets his/her efforts to understand which subject and how much of its
learning would provide what amount of reward (Gonzalez et al., 2001).
There is also a third orientation besides learning and performance orientation, which has been studied
in the context of students, which is called work avoidance orientation (Meece et al., 1988; Meece and
Holt, 1993). In this kind of orientation, students attempt to accomplish a designated level of performance
with the least amount of effort. Work avoidance oriented students require traditional teacher-directed
learning environments for better performance (Veermans and Tapola, 2006). Järvelä (1995) has found
that new technology-based learning environments are more suited for work avoidance oriented students
than others.
Literature from behavioural sciences studies conducted primarily on sales persons reflects that it is
difficult to talk about learning orientation and performance orientation in the same breath (Sujan et al.,
1994). Kohli et al. (1998, p. 263) have however emphasized that ‘performance orientation and learning
orientation are not the opposite ends of a continuum; rather these represents two distinct dimensions’.
They have further written that sales persons (individuals) can have both high performance and learning
orientations. The difference between a learning-oriented person and performance-oriented person and
performance is discussed in Table 1.
Roebken (2007) has indicated that the effectiveness of learning orientation or performance orientation
on performance is situation dependent. Researchers Wentzel (1991, 1993) and Wolters et al. (1993) have
indicated that multiple orientations might reside in an individual and they can interact to have a bearing
on students’ learning and performance. Valle et al. (2003) have talked about these orientations
being complementary. Research has also indicated that learning orientation and performance orientation

Table 1. Differences between Learning Orientation and Performance Orientation

Learning-Oriented Individual Performance-Oriented Individual

Not concerned much with mistakes (Bouffard and
Couture, 2003; Dweck and Leggett, 1988)
More interested in building skills and abilities for long-
term performance (Kohli et al., 1998)
Demonstrate continuous improvement of performance
(Dweck and Leggett, 1988)
Driven by intrinsic motivation (A Gonzalez et al., 2001;
Kohli et al., 1998).
Require teacher-directed learning environments less
(Veermans and Tapola, 2006)
Persist if they feel that they are skilled (Kohli et al.,
1998)
More interested in building skills and abilities for short-
term performance (Kohli et al., 1998)
To portray themselves as successful is important
(Ames and Archer, 1988)
Driven by extrinsic motivation (Ames and Archer,
1988)

Global Business Review, 14, 1 (2013): 43–54

46 Sumi Jha and Som Sekhar Bhattacharyya

are two distant islands (Roebken, 2007). Learning environment has been considered of paramount
importance to create learning orientation in an organization (Baker and Sinkula, 1999). In the academic
context, the classroom environment plays an important role in fostering learning orientation in students
(Gonzales et al., 2004). In a learning-oriented environment the focus of the class is the student and the
teacher is merely a facilitator (Gonzales et al., 2004; Tanner and Roberts, 1996). Academicians who want
to practise a learning orientation teaching style have to take care of three aspects, which are comm-
itment to learning, shared vision and open-mindedness. Commitment to learning is actually the value
placed towards learning (Senge, 1990; Tobin, 1993). The culture of commitment towards learning is an
essential component in learning itself (Galer and Van der Heijden, 1992). Shared vision is the spread of
interest for learning, the positive energy and the clarity in the classroom for the purpose of learning (Day,
1994). Open-mindedness is the constant questioning of mental models that students have towards think-
ing and acting. It is important for students to question the dominant logic to search for better procedures
and practices (Paparoidamis, 2005).
To develop learning orientation among students, cooperative learning principles have to be devel-
oped. Johnson et al. (1991), have indicated that in cooperative learning, team-based positive interde-
pendence, active face-to-face interaction and individual accountability with social skills are present.
Some literature has criticized the conventional lecture mode (Ames and Archer, 1988). Bonwell and
Eison (1991) have however given credit to the traditional lecture format for providing students with
discipline-specific knowledge. But others have voiced the opinion that conventional lecture mode does
not provide students the scope to develop critical thinking, creativity and the necessary workplace skill
of working in teams (Cashin, 1985; McDaniel and White, 1993). Drea et al. (1997) have emphasized that
experiential learning helps in developing an active student-centric learning environment. This method
had become quite popular among marketing instructors (Frontczak, 1998; Hernandez, 2002; Young,
2002). Crittenden et al. (1999) have talked about team-based student groups to improve case-based
learning while Hewett and Hardesty (1999) had talked about virtual teams among students’ spread across
institutions hundreds of kilometres apart.
Performance orientation in individuals tends to make them think with a short-term horizon. The focus
is on the present. The use of abilities and skills by performance-oriented individuals needs positive
evaluation and suitable reward from individual peers, superiors and subordinates (Ames and Archer,
1988; Dweck and Leggett, 1988; Elliott and Dweck, 1988; Nicholls and Dweck, 1979). Unlike learning-
oriented individuals, who have a higher sense of control, performance-oriented individuals have a lower
sense of control as they are significantly affected by others’ evaluation, on which they have little control
(Coad, 1999). Dweck (1986) has proposed that for performance-oriented individuals the reference group
normative comparison will be the focus of performance. Nicholls (1984) has stated that performance
orientation, if predominant in a person, makes the person feel helpless and such a person would have a
decreased sense of making an impact on the organization’s performance. A performance-oriented person
would show lower individual commitment (Diener and Dweck, 1978) and demonstrate low self-
determination (Standage and Treasure, 2002). VandeWalle and Cummings (1979) have found that
performance-oriented individuals, because of low personal commitment, would show fewer personal
initiatives and would be less likely to seek feedback on the task. In other words, they are not proactive.
Elliot and Harackiewicz (1996) have written that performance-oriented individuals are not very inter-
ested in their skill development and thus are less likely to seek training and development. Martzler and
Mueller (2011) have introduced employees’ goal orientations (i.e., learning orientation or performance

Global Business Review, 14, 1 (2013): 43–54

Learning Orientation and Performance Orientation 47

orientation) to the individual antecedents of knowledge-sharing behaviour, arguing that learning orienta-
tion positively influences knowledge sharing, whereas performance orientation is a negative influencing
factor.
Another study on students’ learning and performance orientation has suggested that students’ orienta-
tions change as they progress from elementary to middle school. Students place more emphasis on
performance goals, as they get older. Elementary school students tend to have more learning goals
whereas middle school students have more performance goals. Researchers have suggested that school
goal culture has an influence on students’ goal orientations, because elementary school teachers focus on
learning goals to a greater extent compared to middle school teachers (Wigfield and Cambria, 2010).
Meece and Holt (1993) have indicated that some students could have both high performance and high
learning orientations, while some students might have both low performance and learning orientations.
In this article, the authors have studied the frequency distribution of students exhibiting the four possible
orientation variations, which are:

1. High learning and high performance orientation.

2. High learning and low performance orientation.
3. Low learning and high performance orientation.
4. Low learning and low performance orientation.

Based on the literature review, it may be derived that learning orientation has been conceived more
positively in comparison to performance orientation. This led to the need to identify the differences in
the relationship these two orientations have with performance. Researchers in this article were also inter-
ested in finding the difference in the relationship between students’ learning orientation scores and the
performance scores (across six important exams) as well as students’ performance orientation scores and
the performance scores (across six important exams). To fulfil the above objectives the researchers felt
the need to develop a scale, as one measuring the learning and performance orientations of students was
difficult to find.

Research Objectives
In this article, the authors attempt to:

1. Develop a scale for learning orientation and performance orientation.

2. Study the group differences of high and low learning orientation and performance orientation
groups on six performance scores spread across six years.

Measures
Questionnaire formation was done in three stages. The first stage was extensive literature review on
students’ learning and performance orientations. Based on the factors extracted from literature review,
items were formed and compared with the literature. The second stage was experts’ opinion, which was

Global Business Review, 14, 1 (2013): 43–54

48 Sumi Jha and Som Sekhar Bhattacharyya

taken while framing the final items for the LO/PO questionnaire. Decisions on questions relating to
which items are more relevant, what should be the scale of questionnaire and how should performance
as the dependent variable be captured, were taken. The third stage was performing factor analysis on a
21-item learning and performance orientation scale. After performing factor analysis the number of
items were reduced from 21 to 11. Factor analysis has been discussed in the results section. The learning
orientation questionnaire has five items with a five-point rating scale. The minimum and maximum
scores vary between 5 and 25. It had items such as ‘I enjoy learning about new topics’. The performance
orientation scale has six items with a five-point rating scale. The minimum and maximum scores vary
between 6 and 30. It had items such as ‘I like to spend a lot of time thinking about how my performance
is in comparison to other students’. The performance scores were the actual scores obtained by the stu-
dents during their standard 10, standard 12, first, second and third years of the engineering degree and
final Graduate Aptitude Test Score (GATE) examinations.

Methodology
Survey method was used to elicit information. Roebken (2007) has used the survey method to relate
orientation literature to performance literature. A structured questionnaire on learning orientation, per-
formance orientation and performance was used to collect the data from 220 students. The sample con-
sisted of students who had applied for a master’s degree in technology and having a valid GATE score.
The average age of the respondents was 22.

Results
The data collected from 252 respondents was inspected to check for missing data and other anomalies.
Thirty-two responses were rejected, thus 220 responses were used for data analysis.

Factor Analysis
The data was factor analyzed using exploratory factor analysis. The questionnaire with 21 items had two
major constructs, namely learning orientation and performance orientation, to be measured. To get these
two factors as the output, varimax rotation was used with forced factors as the extraction method. The
initial questionnaire had 21 items (both learning and performance orientations taken together). The
factor analysis was run three times. After every run researchers would remove the items that were cross
loading on both the factors or were not loading significantly on any of the factors. In this process
10 items were removed. Based on the conceptual understanding and the loadings of items, the final
learning orientation construct had five items, while the final performance orientation construct had six
items. To test the reliability of the learning orientation scale with five items and the performance

Global Business Review, 14, 1 (2013): 43–54

Learning Orientation and Performance Orientation 49

Table 2. Factor Analysis for Items of Learning Orientation and Performance Orientation

Factors
Learning Performance
Items Orientation Orientation
I enjoy learning about new topics. 0.666
I like to read diverse topics. 0.614
I find pleasure in learning. 0.710
I get intrinsically motivated to constantly expand my knowledge. 0.611
I seek deep-seated conceptual knowledge for the task assigned to me. 0.448
I spend a lot of time thinking about how my performance is in 0.630
comparison to others’.
I like to seek rewards in short term for my efforts. 0.548
I prefer to see tangible output as a reward for my effort. 0.490
I generally perform and undertake those tasks for which I get rewarded 0.623
soon.
I feel very good when I know I have outperformed other students. 0.561
I always try to communicate my achievements to my friends and teacher. 0.451
Source: Authors’ findings.
Notes: (i) Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis.
(ii) Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
(iii) Rotation converged in three iterations.

Table 3. Learning Orientation and Performance Orientation Scale Values

Construct Cronbach’s Alpha Variance Explained Number of Items

Learning Orientation 0.65 43.19 5
Performance Orientation 0.56 57.69 6
Source: Authors’ findings.

orientation scale with six items, the Cronbach’s alpha was used. The factor loadings are tabulated in Table
2 and the variance explained (by each factor) and the Cronbach’s alpha values are shown in Table 3.

The objective of the study was to research four distinct groups. Towards this purpose as per the scale
measure high performance orientation (PO), high learning orientation (LO), low performance orienta-
tion and low learning orientation scores had to be figured out. The range of scores for LO and PO were
divided into three equal parts. The highest third percentile scores represented the high LO and high PO
scores, while the lowest third percentile represented the low PO and low LO scores. Table 4 provides the
cut-off scores.

Table 4. LO and PO Cut-Off Scores

LO PO
Low ≤ 19 ≤ 18
High ≥ 22 ≥ 20
Source: Authors’ findings.

Global Business Review, 14, 1 (2013): 43–54

50 Sumi Jha and Som Sekhar Bhattacharyya

Table 5. Number of Respondents in Four Different LO and PO Groups

Groups Number of Respondents

Low LO, Low PO 36
Low LO, High PO 31
High LO, Low PO 36
High LO, High PO 32
Source: Authors’ findings.

The LO PO high and low cut-off scores were used to segregate the respondents into four mutually
exclusive groups. The number of respondents in each group has been provided in Table 5. Out of 220
respondents, 135 respondents fell into these four groups. The others were in the middle range.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was run to test the difference in the performances. The group
performance did not differ significantly. The performances were measured at six distinct points in time
and for six different examinations spread over a period of at least six years in chronological order, the
recent being the last examination. The examinations considered were those conducted for standard 10,
standard 12, first, second and third engineering degree and final GATE percentile scores. Across all the
six examinations there were no significant differences among the four groups. The authors further calcu-
lated the mean value of the scores of the four distinct groups in the six examinations. This has been
provided in Table 6 and the scores have been plotted as provided in Figure 1.
It may be observed from Figure 1 that the score of high LO and high PO is more than the scores of
high LO, low PO; low LO, high PO; and low LO and low PO. Based on Table 6 and Figure 1 it may be
inferred that the high performance orientation and low learning orientation group performs better than
the other groups in the short run. In the long run, members in the high learning orientation and high
performance orientation group perform better than the other group members. Thus, generally it may be
observed that across all groups the one common pattern that emerges is that over a period of time per-
formance follows a ‘U’ shape. In India, standard 10, standard 12 and GATE exams are given special
importance not only by students and the academic community but also by the social community, i.e.,
family members and friends of students.

Table 6. Mean Values of Performance Scores

First-Year Second-Year Third-Year

Standard 10 Standard 11 Engineering Engineering Engineering
(Percentage) (Percentage) (Percentage) (Percentage) (Percentage) GATE
High LO, 80.03 79.4 72.45 74.57 75.35 99.16
High PO
Low PO, 79.68 78.8 73.96 73.79 71.88 98.04
High LO
High PO, 81.17 80 73.47 72.84 72.46 97.04
Low LO
Low LO, 78.03 76.9 73.58 72.31 73.86 98.37
Low PO
Source: Authors’ findings.

Global Business Review, 14, 1 (2013): 43–54

Learning Orientation and Performance Orientation 51

Chart Title
100

95

90
HLOHPHO
Performance

85
LPOHLO
80
HPOLLO
75
LLOLPO
70
X X11 1st 2nd 3rd GATE
Year Year Year

Figure 1. Mean Plot of Performance Scores of Different Examinations over the Years
Source: Authors’ findings.

These findings are in line with other researchers’ (such as Meece and Holt, 1993; Kohli et al., 1998)
findings, which have given importance to both the orientations. In our findings also the results showed
that high learning orientation and high performance orientation scores are indicative of better long-term
performance.

Research Implications
The study has provided the theoretical development of scales for operationalization of the concepts of
learning and performance orientations. Further, the effect of learning orientation and performance orien-
tation on performance (longitudinally) has also been studied. Educators, education administrators and
academic policymakers can design their education content and modify their content delivery suitably to
increase the long-term academic performance of students with different levels of learning orientation and
performance orientation. Learning-oriented students might be given more space and freedom to explore
as learning orientation is a source of innovation (Baker and Sinkula, 1999, 2002; Goes and Park, 1997;
Hurley and Hult, 1998; Sinkula et al., 1997). Learning orientation is an important antecedent of innova-
tiveness (Hurley et al., 2003). Calantone et al. (2002) have found that higher the intensity of learning
orientation, higher is the intensity of innovativeness and this is important for policymakers to know.

Global Business Review, 14, 1 (2013): 43–54

52 Sumi Jha and Som Sekhar Bhattacharyya

Conclusion
This research attempted to explore the concept of learning and performance orientations of engineering
graduates. Even after literature review there was some lack of clarity on the importance of the two ori-
entations. This research therefore basically had two distinct purposes. First, to study the differences in
the performance scores with respect to students’ performance orientation and learning orientation scores.
Second, to develop a scale on learning orientation and performance orientation to make the study more
focused to achieve the above objective.
Researchers felt that high learning orientation scores would impact long-term performances like
GATE scores and high performance orientation scores would influence short-term performances like
class 10 and class 12 scores. The findings were somewhat different and it was found that both learning
orientation and performance orientation are important for long-term performance, however, for short-
term performance high performance orientation is more important.

References
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3),
261–271.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the Classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation
processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260–267.
Baker, W.E., & Sinkula, J.M. (1999). The synergistic effect market orientation and learning orientation on organiza-
tional performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 411–427.
Baker, W.E., & Sinkula, J.M. (2002). Market orientation, learning orientation and product innovation: Delving into
the organization’s black box. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 5(1), 5–23.
Bonwell, C.C., & Eison, J.A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom, ASHE-ERIC higher
education report 1. Washington, DC: George Washington University.
Bouffard, T., & Couture, N. (2003). Motivational profile and academic achievement among students enrolled in
different schooling tracks. Educational Studies, 29(1), 19–34.
Calantone, R.J., Cavusgil, S.T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm
performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6), 515–524.
Cashin, W.E. (1985). Improving lectures. Idea Paper No. 14. Manhattan: Center for Faculty Evaluation and
Development, Kansas State University.
Coad, A. (1999). Some survey evidence on the learning and performance orientations of management accountants.
Management Accounting Research, 10, 109–135.
Crittenden, V.L., Crittenden, W.F., & Hawes, J.M. (1999). The facilitation and use of student teams in the case analy-
sis process. Marketing Education Review, 9(3), 15–23.
Day, G.S. (1994). Continuous learning about markets. California Management Review, 36(Summer), 9–31.
Dessler, G. (2007). Human resource management, New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Private Limited.
Diener, C., & Dweck, C. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes in performance, strategy,
and achievement cognitions following failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 451– 462.
Drea, J.T., Singh, M., & Engelland, B.T. (1997). Using experiential learning in principles of marketing course: An
empirical analysis of student marketing audits. Marketing Education Review, 7(2), 53–59.
Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048.
Dweck, C.S., & Leggett, E.L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological
Review, 95(2), 256–273.
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation:
A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 461–475.

Global Business Review, 14, 1 (2013): 43–54

Learning Orientation and Performance Orientation 53

Elliott, E., & Dweck, C.S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54(1), 5­–12.
Fortune, A., Lee, M., & Cavazos, A. (2005).  Special section: Field education in social work achievement motivation
and outcome in social work field education. Journal of Social Work Education, 41(1), 115–129.
Frontczak, N.T. (1998). A paradigm for the selection, use and development of experiential learning activities
in marketing education. Marketing Education Review, 8(3), 39–50.
Galer, G., & Van der Heijden, K. (1992). The learning organization: How planners create organizational learning.
Market Intelligence and Planning, 10(6), 5–12.
Goes, J.B., & Park, S.H. (1997). Interorganizational links and innovation: The case of hospital services. Academy of
Management Journal, 40(3), 673–696.
Gonzalez, A., Greenwood, G., & WenHsu, J. (2001). Undergraduate students’ goal orientation and their relationship
to perceived parenting styles. College Student Journal, 35(2), 182–193.
Gonzalez, G.R., Ingram, T.N., Laforge, R.W., & Leigh, T.W. (2004). Social capital: Building an effective learning
environment in marketing classes. Marketing Education Review, 14(2), 1–8.
Hernandez, S.A. (2002). Team learning in a marketing principles course: Cooperative structures that facilitate
active learning and higher level thinking. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(1), 73–85.
Hewett, K., & Hardesty, D.M. (1999). Team project in an inter-campus setting: The impact of group characteristics.
Marketing Education Review, 9(2), 23–31.
Hurley, R.F., Hult, G.T.M., & Knight, G.A. (2003). Innovativeness: Its antecedents and impact on business perform-
ance. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5), 429–438.
Hurley, T.R.F., & Hult, G.T.M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: An integration
and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62, 42–54.
Järvelä, S. (1995). The cognitive apprenticeship model in a technologically rich learning environment: Interpreting
the learning interaction, Learning and Instruction, 5(3),237–259.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith, K.A. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty productiv-
ity, ASHE-ERIC higher education report No. 4. Washington, DC: George Washington University, School of
Educational and Human Development.
Kohli, A.K., Shervani, T.A., & Challagalla, G.N. (1998). Learning and performance orientation of salespeople: The
role of supervisors. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 263–274.
Laverie, Debra A., Madhavaram, Sreedhar, & McDonald, Robert E. (2008). Developing a learning orientation: The
role of team-based active learning. Marketing Education Review, 18(3), 37–51.
Martzler, K., & Mueller, J. (2011), Antecedents of knowledge sharing: Examining the influence of learning and
performance orientation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(3), 317–329.
McDaniel, S.W., & White, J.C. (1993). The quality of the academic preparation of undergraduate marketing majors:
An assessment by company recruiters. Marketing Education Review, 3(Fall), 9–16.
Meece, J.L., & Holt, K. (1993). A pattern analysis of students’ achievement goals. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 26, 399–427.
Meece, J.L., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Hoyle, R. (1988). Students’ goal orientation and cognitive engagement in activi-
ties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514–523.
Nicholls, J. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and
performance. Psychological Review, 91(3), 328–346.
Nicholls, J.G., & Dweck, C.S. (1979). A definition of achievement motivation. Unpublished manuscript, University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Paparoidamis, Nicholas G. (2005). Learning orientation and leadership quality: Their impact on salespersons’
performance. Management Decision, 43(7/8), 1054–1063.
Redmond, M.R., Mumford, M.D., & Teach, R. (1993). Putting creativity to work: Effects of leader behavior on
subordinate creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 120–151.

Global Business Review, 14, 1 (2013): 43–54

54 Sumi Jha and Som Sekhar Bhattacharyya

Roebken, H. (2007). Multiple goals, satisfaction, and achievement in university undergraduate education. Retrieved
from http://cshe.berkehttp://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/docs/ROP.Roebken.2.07.pdfley.edu/publications/
docs/ROP.Roebken.2.07.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2012)
Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of learning orientation. New York: Doubleday.
Shah A., Thomas, S., & Gorham, M. (2008). India’s financial markets: An insider’s guide to how the markets work.
Amsterdam: Elsevier Publications.
Sinkula, J.M., Baker, W.E., & Noordewier, T.G. (1997). A framework for market-based organizational learning:
Linking values, knowledge and behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 305–318.
Standage, M., & Treasure, D.C. (2002). Relationship among achievement goal orientations and multidimensional
situational motivation in physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 87–103.
Sujan, Harish, Weitz, Barton A., & Kumar, Nirmalya (1994). Learning orientation, working smart, and effective
selling. Journal of Marketing, 58(July), 39–52.
Tanner, J.F., & Roberts, J.A. (1996). Active learning: Students as teachers. Marketing Education Review, 6(1),
41–46.
Tobin, D.R. (1993). Re-educating the corporation: Foundations for the learning organization. Essex Junction, VT:
Oliver Wright.
Valle, A., Cabanach, R.G., Nunez, J.C., Gonzalez-Pienda, J., Rodriguez, S., & Pineiro, I. (2003). Multiple goals,
motivation and academic learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 71–87.
VandeWalle, D., & Cummings, L.I. (1997). A test of the influence of goal orientation on the feedback seeking
process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 390–400.
Veermans, M., & Tapola, A. (2006). Motivation and interest (Motivaatio ja kiinnostuneisuus). In S. Järvelä,
P. Häkkinen & E. Lehtinen (eds), Learning theory and the use of technology in teaching (Oppimisen teoria ja
teknologian opetuskäyttö) (pp. 65–84). Porvoo, Finland: WSOY.
Wentzel, K.R. (1991). Social and academic goals at school: Motivation and achievement in context. In M.L. Maehr
& P.R. Pintrich (eds), Advances in motivation and achievement: A research annual, Vol. 7 (pp. 185–212).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Wentzel, K.R. (1993). Social and academic goals at school: Motivation and achievement in early adolescence.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 13(1), 4–20.
Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Students’ achievement values, goal orientations, and interest: Definitions, devel-
opment, and relations to achievement outcomes. Developmental Review, 30(1), 1–35.
Wolters C., Yu, S., & Pintrich, P. (1996). The relation between goal orientation and students’ motivational beliefs and
self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 211–238.
Young, M.R. (2002). Experiential learning = Hands-on + minds-on. Marketing Education Review, 12(1), 43–51.

Global Business Review, 14, 1 (2013): 43–54