University Scholars' Achievement Goals, Work Stress, and Performance in the Teaching and Research Domains

• In Event: Emotional Well-Being in Faculty: Construct Assessment and Motivational Antecedents

Abstract

Motivation constitutes a barely explored—yet presumably crucial—condition of the professional experience and behavior of university scholars. Under the motivational framework of Achievement Goal Theory, goals of university scholars can be expected to be associated with work stress and performance (Daumiller et al., 2019). While it stands to reason that different goal preferences can affect the development of stress (e.g., through different evaluations of objective stressors and coping mechanisms used) and performance (e.g., through the tasks chosen and the respective commitment) over time, stress and performance might also affect goal setting processes (e.g., in times of high pressure, less resource-intensive goals are chosen; see also DeShon & Gillespie, 2005). At the same time, the goals of university scholars can be considered as separable for research and teaching (Authors, 2019).

Disentangling this interplay between goals for teaching and research with stress and performance over time is important for understanding the motivational dynamics in university scholars and how this population can be supported in terms of their well-being and maintaining performance (also in times of high pressure). Thus, the aim of this study was to examine the temporal effects of achievement goals on work stress and performance while considering teaching and research simultaneously.

Thrice, every six months, 465 German university scholars (54.3% males; 64.1% with PhD, 21.3% full professors) made assessments about their achievement goals for research and for teaching, work stress (MBI-GS-D, Büssing & Glaser, 1998), and teaching and research performance (based on Dresel et al., 2012). We used the finer achievement goal differentiation proposed by Daumiller et al. (2019), distinguishing between task, learning, appearance, and normative goals (each with an approach and avoidance component) as well as work avoidance and relational goals. This differentiation has been shown to describe the goal striving processes of university scholars well and allows for precise modelling of the effects of the individual motivations.

The results pointed to moderate to high temporal stabilities of the goals (ICC = .46-.72). Latent growth curve modeling (see Table 1) attested that the initial levels and temporal developments of goals, work stress, and performance covaried in line with our expectations. Regarding the temporal effects between them, we did not find evidence for stress and performance affecting changes in goals. Instead, we found that goals significantly predicted the development of stress and performance. In both domains, task approach goals were highly functional and appearance approach (resp. avoidance) goals were associated with an increase (resp. decrease) in performance. Regarding the overall stress levels, we found that only the goals in the research domain mattered: Normative and work avoidance goals constituted risk factors while learning approach constituted a protective factor for the development of stress.

Taken together, this study highlights the importance of achievement goals for work stress and performance of university scholars and illuminates the complex dynamics between both work domains. An important implication of the findings is that focusing on the goals in the research domain (instead of the teaching domain) can be a worthwhile direction to support scholars’ well-being.

Authors

• Martin Daumiller, University of Augsburg

• Markus Dresel, Augsburg University