CAPITAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY, ISLAMABAD

Impact of Challenging Goals on

Project Performance with
Mediating Role of Knowledge
Creation and Moderating Role of
Self-Efficacy
by
Rida Amjad
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment for the
degree of Master of Science

in the
Faculty of Management & Social Sciences
Department of Management Sciences

2018
 i

Copyright
c 2018 by Ms. Rida Amjad

All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced, distributed, or

transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or
other electronic or mechanical methods, by any information storage and retrieval
system without the prior written permission of the author.
 ii

I would like to dedicate this work to my beloved parents and siblings

for their unconditional love and support.
 CAPITAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
ISLAMABAD

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

Impact of Challenging Goals on Project Performance with

Mediating Role of Knowledge Creation and Moderating
Role of Self-Efficacy

by
Rida Amjad
MPM163001

THESIS EXAMINING COMMITTEE

S. No. Examiner Name Organization

(a) External Examiner Dr. Nadeem Ahmad Khan PIDE, Islamabad
(b) Internal Examiner Dr. Mueen Aizaz Zafar CUST, Islamabad
(c) Supervisor Dr. S. M. M. Raza Naqvi CUST, Islamabad

Dr. S. M. M. Raza Naqvi

Thesis Supervisor
October, 2018

Dr. Sajid Bashir Dr. Arshad Hassan

Head Dean
Dept. of Management Sciences Faculty of Management & Social Sciences
October, 2018 October, 2018
 iv

Author’s Declaration
I, Rida Amjad hereby state that my MS thesis titled “Impact of Challenging
Goals on Project Performance with Mediating Role of Knowledge Cre-
ation and Moderating Role of Self-Efficacy ” is my own work and has not
been submitted previously by me for taking any degree from Capital University
of Science and Technology, Islamabad or anywhere else in the country/abroad.

At any time if my statement is found to be incorrect even after my graduation,

the University has the right to withdraw my MS Degree.

(Rida Amjad)

Registration No: MPM163001

 v

Plagiarism Undertaking
I solemnly declare that research work presented in this thesis titled “Impact
of Challenging Goals on Project Performance with Mediating Role of
Knowledge Creation and Moderating Role of Self-Efficacy ” is solely my
research work with no significant contribution from any other person. Small con-
tribution/help wherever taken has been dully acknowledged and that complete
thesis has been written by me.

I understand the zero tolerance policy of the HEC and Capital University of Science
and Technology towards plagiarism. Therefore, I as an author of the above titled
thesis declare that no portion of my thesis has been plagiarized and any material
used as reference is properly referred/cited.

I undertake that if I am found guilty of any formal plagiarism in the above titled
thesis even after award of MS Degree, the University reserves the right to with-
draw/revoke my MS degree and that HEC and the University have the right to
publish my name on the HEC/University website on which names of students are
placed who submitted plagiarized work.

(Rida Amjad)

Registration No: MPM163001

 vi

Acknowledgements
All praise and thanks to ALMIGHTY ALLAH, who in his Infinite Mercy and
Grace enabled me to complete my research work.

Alhamdulilah.

First, I would like to thanks Capital University of Science and Technology for
providing this opportunity to me for improving my knowledge and skills and ac-
complishing this research work and for providing such competent teachers who are
always willing to help the student. I would like to thanks my supervisor Dr. S.
M. M. Raza Naqvi who was very kind and helped me a lot to complete this
research work. I feel honored to work under his supervision.

I am very thankful to my parents for their prayers and continuous support through-
out my academic career. I would also like to thank some lovely people in my life
including my brother Syed Shazib Ali, and my sister Ayesha Amjad for being
with me to support me and boost my morale to complete my work well.

(Rida Amjad)
 vii

Abstract
The focus of this study is to explore the impact of challenging goals on project
performance with mediating role of knowledge creation and moderating role of
self-efficacy. The context of this study is power plant projects in Pakistan. Data
is collected from 281 employees and project managers working on different plants
under various power plant projects. Current study results indicate that a positive
significant relationship exist between challenging Goals and project performance.
The findings show that mediating role of knowledge creation has positive rela-
tionship between challenging goals and project performance. As employees who
accept challenges are likely to improve the performance of a project. Self-efficacy
was tested as a moderator, and have positive relationship between knowledge cre-
ation and project performance, however it exhibits a negative impact between the
challenging goals and project performance. Theoretical and practical implications
have also been discussed in this study. This Study will help Pakistani power plant
projects in implementing and practicing challenging goals which will increase em-
ployee’s self-efficacy to achieve project performance.

Keywords: Challenging goals, Knowledge Creation, Project Perfor-

mance, Self-efficacy.
Contents

Author’s Declaration iv

Plagiarism Undertaking v

Acknowledgements vi

Abstract vii

List of Figures xi

List of Tables xii

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Gap Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.5 Research Objectives for This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.6 Significance of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.7 Supporting Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2 Literature Review 11
2.1 Challenging Goals and Project Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2 Mediating role of Knowledge Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3 Moderating role of Self-Efficacy between Knowledge Creation and
Project Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4 Moderating role of Self-Efficacy with Challenging Goals and Project
Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.5 Research Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.6 Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3 Methdology 25
3.1 Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.1.1 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.1.2 Research Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

viii
 ix

3.1.3 Type of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.1.4 Unit of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.1.5 Study Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.1.6 Time Horizon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2 Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2.1 Ethical Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2.2 Challenging Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2.3 Knowledge Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2.4 Project Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2.5 Self Efficacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.3 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.3.1 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.3.2 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.3.3 Sample Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.3.3.1 Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.3.3.2 Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3.3.3 Qualification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.3.3.4 Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.4 Statistical Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.5 Pilot Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.6 Reliability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.7 Data Analysis Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4 Results 36
4.1 Results for hypothesized variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.1.1 Descriptive Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.1.2 Correlation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.1.3 Regression Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.2 Summary of Accepted and Rejected Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . 41

5 Discussion and Conclusion 43

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.2.1 Challenging Goals and Project Performance . . . . . . . . . 44
5.2.2 Mediating Role of Knowledge Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.2.3 Moderating Role of Self-Efficacy between Knowledge Cre-
ation and Project Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.2.4 Moderating Self-Efficacy between Challenging Goals and Project
Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.3 Theoretical and Practical Implication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.4 Strengths, Limitations and Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Bibliography 50
 x

Appendix-A 65
List of Figures

2.1 Conceptual Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4.1 Mediated Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

4.2 Coefficients of mediated model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

xi
List of Tables

3.1 Instruments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.2 Represent Gender Percentage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3 Represent Respondent’s Age Distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.4 Respondent’s Qualification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.5 Respondent’s Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.6 Scale Reliability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

4.1 Descriptive Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4.2 Pearson Correlation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.3 Regression Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.4 Hypothesis Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

xii
Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Background

Project Performance is one of the critical gauge now a day, especially in project
base organizations where project need to be delivered in a defined span of time
with limited resources (Clark, 1989; Atkinson, 1999). In last few years project
performance criteria help to counter novel and complex nature of work (Munns
& Bjeirmi, 1996). Project performance plays significant role in the completion of
project because project success is the ultimate goal of a project. Project perfor-
mance attaining more attention of the researchers as it is the most prominent and
emerging field in the organizations nowadays (Kaulio, 2008). There are critical
factors that lead the project to failure. Challenging goals of a project create fac-
tor of courage in individuals who have specific challenging goals as they perform
best than for those goals that are not cleared (Arumugam, Antony & Linderman,
2016).

Project’s final user satisfaction is dire thing but conventional methods and mea-
surement of project success revolves around only cost saving, comply with quality
and time management, called iron triangle (Archer & Ghasemzadeh, 1999). If we
have a glance these pyramids are considered best for project performance. Iron
triangle can be used to check the success factor of project management whereas
project success involves detail objective and success factors that may be adding

1
Introduction 2

resources in the system which lead to profitability (Davies, 2002; Jugdev & Mller,
2005). A project success key parameters are not only time, cost and quality they
also involve on operation, safety, utility and performance (Chan & Chan, 2004).

Challenging goals of an organization must be linked with strategic policies as

individual will perform in a good manner having knowledge of their limitations.
Setting a specific goal moderate the performance of the project as increases task
complexity increases because “do your best” case followed when individuals have
high performance goal (Latham & Locke, 2007). The probability of failure is high
as compare to success due to uniqueness in projects. The direct or indirect success
depends on success factors of a project which work as input in the system (De Wit,
1988). Intensive transfer of knowledge among project team and end user of project
create coalition which will lead them toward new business opportunities in future
as knowledge creation and acquisition help to meet their goals (Yli-renko, Autio &
Sapienza, 2001). Challenging goals can increase the performance result when the
divergence between the recent performance and endeavor monitor the constancy
and intention (Sitkin et al., 2011).

Adequate application and integration of the knowledge and skills consumed by the
project teams in project rapidly counter the sudden disruption in the performing
task and pertinent cause for desired outcomes from the project (Lin & Huang,
2010). Knowledge creation promotes a deeply innate culture of learning because
learning makes project teams to play more dynamic roles for challenging goals.
Though knowledge creation individuals who are able and willing to apply their
learned skill for decision making and influence the project performance (Paavola
& Hakkarainen, 2005). Challenging goals bring sense of threat which induces
project teams to forgo traditional methods and open towards opportunities to
seek novelty and take risk (Choo, 2011).

Outstanding product composition and process rely on management’s capability

to combine small chunks of particular knowledge about item being processed by
conveying the required information of challenging goals to the team enhances the
projects deliverable performance (Mitchell, 2006). Effective knowledge creation
among teams helps to locate knowledge adequately as any problem occur in the
Introduction 3

system while developing a product than team head can ask the experts of the
specific problem this way of responding leads to meet the time constraints of the
project and performance (Chang, Yen, Chiange & Parolia, 2013). Success of a
project is important for all customers, project team and other stakeholders.

Bandura (1997) articulates that self-efficacy as a person’s belief to perform a task

in vibrant setting successfully. Self-efficacy approach carries a range from general
to specific. Generalized self-efficacy pattern shows a perception that how can one
perform beyond expectation in diverse conditions (Smith, 1989). Previous studies
show relation of challenging goal with performance but very few studies shows
relationship between self-efficacy and project performance when ability and goal
difficulty is controlled (Locke, Frederick, Lee & Bobko, 1984). As level of self-
efficacy increases, project teams smoothly adjust to dynamic environment (Ban-
dura, 1977). Team members with high self-efficacy make positive impression and
attitude to their working setting, which will contribute to project performance.

Self-efficacy derives motivation behavior of individuals and challenging goals al-

ways have characteristics that allow individual to make assessment of present
project performance to determine progress towards challenging goals when they
identify about making progress self-efficacy increases to continue and improve
project performance (Schunk, 1995). Self-efficacy indicates the thought patterns
of individuals which affects the choice of setting challenging goal, ultimately higher
self-efficacy in attitude linked with project performance orientation and refer to
perceived capability for challenging goal (Stevens & Gist, 1997).

Self-efficacy intuition affects individual’s motivation and have impact on aim and
goals through their plan (Locke, 2009). Project goals must be related to organiza-
tion strategy. Self-efficacy affects the one’s behavior by self-influence, as in organi-
zation context self-efficacy improves performance by putting influence that’s how
individual motivate themselves for challenging task, how they act and what they
think (Pillai &Williams, 2004). Self-efficacy key elements are certain behavior
action of human positivize and negative assumption, rigorness in performing task
and persistence (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Miles and Maurer (2012) affirms that
human action is positively motived by self-influence. Individual’s personal goals
Introduction 4

plays a vital role in governing the attitude and pressure, hence it is necessary to
develop the goal that pursuit the define goals dimensions (Mozani et al., 2015).

Currently researches are focusing on project performance as it can be analyzed

through project’s impact, its outcome and stakeholder’s serenity relying in three
pillars will not produce a critical verdict for performance (Turner & Zolin, 2012).
Project based organization need to be more competitive and innovative in their
work as future demand of people will change and projects in nature are always
different from other project. So change in organization environment and sudden
conflict arise due to customer changes the specification instantly coup by the
management for higher performance (Koch & Bendixen, 2005).

1.2 Gap Analysis

In recent studies there is a call e.g. Arumugam et al. 2016 that projects challenging
goals need to be examined with reference of performance and moderating effect
of self-efficacy. Not too much studies in literature exist to study the fact that
customer’s demands are commutated (Mirchandani & Lederer, 2012). So in the
planning stage of project for setting challenging goals need to be revised. The
performance approach of challenging and specific goal is being pursued over the
industry practically it needs empirical evidence and more investigation so that it
could be properly pursued in the other industries as well. This research work also
finds the gap that define mediating and moderating structure that can probably
effect of relationship of variables that are not established in previous studies.

Locke and Latham (2002) state that individuals that are trained by the manage-
ment with in the organizational strategies are more likely to perform in better
manner when their given goal is challenging and specific with strategies. Ghosal
and Bartlett (1994) says that challenging situation can make the personnel of orga-
nization to put effort with specific measures to attain desired outcomes of project.
Weldon and Weingart (1993) proposed in their study that challenging goals will
execute strength among the teams of project that give motivation, brings commit-
ment and inspire them to evolve strategies for their project success. The knowledge
Introduction 5

creation scrutinizes in different manner as new product process, making policies of

organizations and knowledge about customer wants helps the organization’s man-
agement to develop a deliverable for that started project (Chua, 2002). Literature
lack the most significant gap with empirical evidence at large scale projects that
knowledge creation makes a difference to operational excellence project perfor-
mance (Nonaka, Toyama & Nagata, 2000).

Individuals who have high level of self-efficacy in their personality have ability
to tackle stress of challenging goals then those individual who are less efficacious
(Speier & Frese, 1997). Self-efficacy helps to strengthen the possibility of project
personnel to perform tremendously (Voskuil & Robbins, 2015). Organization doing
projects but after any failure by following traditional method their momentum of
making improvement become very low. Setting challenging goals that are united
with self-efficacy through training session affect performance of project and di-
minish the risk of uncertainty (Hwang, 2016). Many researchers from a long time
conducting their research in the field of project. There is extensive load of liter-
ature about the certain success factor of any project but very little consideration
is being given to success of any specific project in Pakistan to fill this gap there is
need of studies (Iram, Khan, Ahmad & Sahibzada, 2017).

1.3 Problem Statement

Project performance is an essential facet of project management, it addresses

and provides a latest and efficient way to all those aborted methodologies and
conventional system pursued for setting specific and challenging goals. But there
is a question still have not answered that which project performance is better
than one who follows method of setting challenging goals related to organization
strategies or those following the traditional system process for vague or unclear
goals. Project success criteria revolves around iron triangle but there are certain
factors that effect performance which are not define in traditional methodology of
projects. Setting the challenging and specific goals strongly enhance attitude and
performance (Ordonez, Schweitzer, Galinsky & Bazerman, 2009).
Introduction 6

Challenging goals with respect to performance are still unexplored. Further the
structure by which setting challenging goals phase affects project performance is
not clear enough, here we propose a mediation with knowledge creation. In or-
ganizations, the importance of knowledge creation has not given due attention as
measuring it is not a slight issue (Madhvan & Grover, 1998; O’Dell & Grayson,
1999; Wah, 1999). Also the moderating role of self-efficacy under charter analyzed.
Individuals have high self-efficacy in their personality when they face dissatisfac-
tion and stress due to failure in task performance will recoup more quickly will
clinch demand and apply innovative problem solution methods when they have
tough task in project (Collins, 1982).

If an organization wants to bring commitment in employees towards the work

manager must communicate with employees often about the goals and gave direc-
tion them to achieve those goals at early stages of project (Enriquez, McBride, &
Paxton, 2001). Communicating with employees about the demand of goals can
help the employees to draw a big picture about the deliverables of project. Social
cognitive theory says that mechanism to bring individual anticipation of behav-
ior by motivating one by his task performance which is inspect by the individual
(Schaubroek & Merrit, 1997). This is the different domain which is not encoun-
tered till now with all variables (Challenging goals, Knowledge creation, Project
performance and Self-efficacy) in the project base organizations as well as in the
body of literature of project management. Finally, as a domain project manage-
ment put focus on projects, that are accomplished in developed countries over the
globe but fewer studies are on deck about developing countries.

1.4 Research Questions

On the premise of the stated issue the present study is cut to find answer for some
questions, concise summary of the questions is given as:

Research Question 1

How challenging goals affect project performance?

Introduction 7

Research Question 2

Does knowledge creation mediates the relationship between challenging goals and
project performance?

Research Question 3

Does self-efficacy moderates the relationship between knowledge creation and

project performance, and relationship between challenging goals and project per-
formance?

1.5 Research Objectives for This Study

The objective of this study is to explains the relation between variables shown in
the model that all variables are normal and dependable and generate results that
is the lucrative for completion of project.

The objectives of the study are as following:

• To explain the impact of challenging goals and project performance.

• To investigate the mediating role of knowledge creation with challenging

goals and project performance.

• To explain the moderating role of self-efficacy with knowledge creation and

project performance, and challenging goal and project performance.

1.6 Significance of the study

The current work will provide solid proof about performance of project-based
organizations by setting challenging goals process that will also be helpful in the
adding logical information to project management domain. The research will also
open new structure of setting challenging goals to be considered in detail. In
Pakistan the power plant sector will came to know importance of managing goals
effectively and efficiently in project. Whenever any project got started and project
Introduction 8

managers reach to the middle phase of projects then they face hurdles and multiple
failures and problems, through this study project manager will be facilitated about
accomplishment and the usefulness of goal and how to take decisions against risks.

In diverse settings, projects are delayed and not making ample revenue or zero
profiting the organization and the customers, even though they are completed
with in time and cost but do not meet their performance objectives (Dvir, Raz
& Shenhar, 2003). This study is focusing the new ways that scratch and increase
knowledge about how to enhance project performance. By this study practitioner
will be capable to give confidence and hope to their personnel to tackle challenging
situations. Competition about the projects is now around the globe and projects
play an essential role in attaining competitive edge transforming their culture
into project base culture. However, in order to achieve success organizations face
many hurdles. In context of Pakistan, the main hindrance about project is delays
in process.

Various issues arise in the evolution of project and two of those basic concerns are
overrunning of cost and delays. But there are other certain concerns that hinders
their performance like setting the challenging goals although specific goals boost
performance but certain aspect that affects the goal setting like culture, employees
behavior helps the manager to understand the complexity. Proposed study tells
about what is the importance of knowledge creation on an appropriate manner so
the scrupulous information conveyed to get desired outcomes. In today’s business
knowledge is the purposeful capital, organizations augment the knowledge created
by individuals and delineate it is as chunk of knowledge structure of organization
(Nonaka, Takeuchi & Umemoto, 1996).

Knowledge creation affect the indelibly competitive aspects during setting of goals,
it also enhances learning by two ways before doing the task and by doing the task
(Carrillo & Gaimon, 2000). National culture of Pakistan is describing by high
power distance and collectivist adaption (Hofstede, 1980). This thing brings out
an atmosphere in which labor have power difference with manager and themselves.
But when people are motivated through self-efficacy they perform tremendously.
Bandura (1997) affirmed that self-efficacy is associated with organization as well
Introduction 9

as person’s performance. By opting self-efficacy as a replacement of actual capa-

bilities will be an adequate mechanism. Therefore, this research work strives the
impact of Challenging goals in context with performance with mediating role of
knowledge creation, and moderating role of self-efficacy in project base organiza-
tions of Pakistan.

1.7 Supporting Theory

Different researchers have proposed and explained many underpinning theories

all over the world to support explore the research model of this paper like goal
setting theory, theory of goal achievement social technical theory in six sigma and
IT projects. The best enough to research model is goal setting theory which covers
all the variables of the study.

The major aim of proposed research is to illustrate the domination of goal setting
for the organization reputation, employee’s and project performance. Therefore,
the theory of goal setting is preferred as this is the best fit theory which links with
all the variables e.g. Challenging goals, Self-efficacy, performance and knowledge
creation.

Goal Setting Theory

Edwin Locke in 1960 presents the goal motivation theory this theory is linked with
the organizational performance. By knowledge creation they know how to perform
a difficult task to increase performance, as knowledge creation effects self-efficacy
of an individual, bring commitment and enhance performance (Locke & Latham,
1990). Goal setting theory apply on individual as well as groups, however if chal-
lenging goals accepted once they give direction for larger parameter of success and
persistence among individuals (Tubbs, 1986). System of prudence for desired per-
formance always governed by both knowledge and motivation knowledge creation
take place through learning otherwise events only occur by chance, goal motivates
the human action in teams of project (Scott, 1987).
Introduction 10

According to theory self-efficacy make difference that how one think, act and feel
about (Bandura, 2001). Specific challenging goals affects motivation of employees,
individuals with high level of self-efficacy prefer to choose difficult goals as self-
efficacy gave confidence to do that work and goal attainment (Latham & Locke,
2007). Theory stated that people have different level of thinking, individual’s
flexibility varies from person to person and reason behind it is that level of con-
sent. Goal increase people’s intellectual & affective feedback to performance end
result because goals stipulate the need for personal success, goals also precise self-
control & self-judgement of performance achievements (Zimmerman, Bandura &
Martinez-Pons, 1992).
Chapter 2

Literature Review

2.1 Challenging Goals and Project Performance

Goal setting literature define the term goals as obtaining specific regulation of
competence in a task within specific span of time (Locke et al., 1981). The Goal
setting theory postulates that prejudices and concrete goals are fundamentals in
achieving task performance related objectives by individuals (Locke & Latham,
1990). On the basis of experimental studies, it is conspicuous that arduous goals
expedite performance than discrete, undemanding goals; in the same way indistinct
or definite then “try one’s hardest” or objective less. Projects can attain fruit-
ful results by setting challenging goals to get unexceptional outcomes. Gutierrz,
LIorens-Montes and Sanchez (2009) suggested those projects that have challenging
and laborious goals must have a shared vision for themselves because when goals
are different in nature they must do work to teams.

Through individuals stretch when they have motivation for challenging goals and
they work as a team and align their energy for a specific task they will perform
better. Reason behind it is that in teams they learn about strength and weakness
of each other some task are different that are beyond one’s strength and they
know how to coup herculean task. Goal setting theory is lined with aging and
challenging goals motivate employees to behave more consciously to attain fruit-
fully project performance even when goals are hard to achieve (West, Ebner &

11
Literature Review 12

Hastings, 2013). Challenging goals make people to focus on the goals, as learning
goals make employees to keep in their mind about desired performance without
disturbing the milestones of the project (Seijts et al., 2011).

As arduous goals and working in teams help to resolve conflicts and create con-
sistency among employees. Empirical studies postulates that challenging and dif-
ficult goals brings attention toward the task and stimulates strategy exploration
for desired project performance (Earley, Connolly & Ekegren, 1989). Challenging
goals with a vision creates an environment that regulates human to perform better
(Locke, Shaw, Saari & Latham, 1981). Employees work as a team for challeng-
ing goals as outcome their performance increases with level of difficulty in task
because herculean task leads towards desired outcome when it comes to perform
as a unit (Weldon & Weingart, 1993). Projects always affected by the employee’s
determination, commitment with goals it also boosts self-efficacy among employ-
ees. Metter of getting success in projects become more important for employees
and project manager when they work as s team in project because they contribute
more effort and commitment with the project goals as performance linked with
their own perks and promotions in organization.

Goal setting theory pertains that effect of specific and challenging goals leads
to project higher performance in task with feedback that coupled motivation that
seems to be mandatory for enhancing performance (Mento, Steel & Karren, 1987).
Challenging goals have direct positive relation with goals when goals are difficult
and specific and employees are committed towards goals, and knowledge of out-
comes and feedback as well as mechanism of incentives effects the behavior to
the extent of goal setting (Brown & Latham, 2002). Challenging goals positively
related to project performance as goal setting part of planning and it increases
the quality and making goals effective learning through past experiences (Smith,
Locke & Barry, 1990).

Projects are always different in nature and challenging because every project start
for specific goal which is arduous in nature so organization who do complex projects
must have a mechanism of motivation for employees by delegating authorities
to lower level employees for specific task, empowerment creates self-efficacy and
Literature Review 13

confidence for better attainment of goals and encourages them to perform good
(Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1994). Individuals for prejudice and challenging goals have
more consistency and motivation to work then working as a team or for group goal
because in group every member has his own stakes to attain better performance,
it may create rivalry in organization as social loafing occurs (O’Leary-Kelly, Mar-
tocchio & Frink, 1994). So it is not confirmed that every member in group will
put his all attention to challenging task.

Kleingeld, Van Mierlo and Arends (2011) says that in projects when employees
have challenging goals they have to divide their task into small chunks by doing this
they create task dependency among employees where they have a shared vision,
to achieve desired result they share experience about current project or any past
project. Through task dependency team’s attention will same towards arduous
goal as group performance will be evaluated at the end of project. As students do
projects in group will complete work more efficiently and effectively than working
as an individual for a project.

Locke (1968) exhibits a positive direct relation between challenging goal and
project performance. Scientist were considered more creative when they felt tested
because intellect grow under challenge and this sense arise from challenging goals
to work hard for project performance (Choo, 2011). Role of project manager also
affect the challenging goal and performance because assigning challenging task to
project teams, a manger’s notion can be supporting or demoralizing for pursuing
project performance (Preenen, Vianen & Pater, 2014).

Projects challenging goals have positive relation with the project performance if
project goals are prejudice in nature as objective because goals that are subjective
or unclear will reduce the motivation (Linderman, Schroeder & Choo, 2006). And
projects performance can be achieved by team work as individual do not have the
ability to make extensive effort for project needs if they have to make any change
in defined strategy. Locke, Latham and Erez (1988) says that to achieve better
outcomes employees must be committed with goal, they create determination and
in teams it will bring a close-knit to work together. Linderman at el. (2006)
through challenging goals we attain desired outcomes but its not only includes
Literature Review 14

that goal should be objective but the management of projects have capacity and
tool and techniques to handle arduous stages of project.

Hypothesis 1: Challenging goals have positive and significant relation-

ship with Project Performance.

2.2 Mediating role of Knowledge Creation

Locke et al. (1981) asserts that challenging goal have positive impact on project
performance by adapting certain tactics, perks that motivate employees to achieve
desired results. As tactics include some strategies helps to define the action plan
which is created to resolve issues to attain challenging goals (Argote, McEvily &
Reagans, 2003). Mechanism of developing strategies can be done only through
knowledge creation as knowledge creation includes retention and disbursement.
Knowledge creation involves certain things like ability, opportunity and motiva-
tion, employees have ability to share knowledge only when the quality of knowledge
will be enough to retain as by giving trainings.

Knowledge creation is critically important for setting challenging goals and project
performance on early stages of learning brings acquisition of new knowledge will
be considered a part of routine before specifying task and become automatically
every employee’s attention which needs to be focal point for finding means that
lead towards outstanding performance (Seijts & Latham, 2005). Putting effort
will be an opportunity for them to attain target goals as they share their previous
experience and create a motivation among themselves. Knowledge creation process
facilitate projects to intensify knowledge embedded internally and putting it into
operational activities with project members to improve efficiency, performance and
create value (Tsai & Li, 2007).

Seeking Goals that assume to be different and challenging makes learning and
knowledge creation to meet project performance parameters, because specific goals
are challenging and uncertain as it requires new passages for application of strate-
gies to achieve desired outcomes (Sitkin, See, Miller, Lawless & Cartoon, 2011).When
Literature Review 15

employee’s motivation is high it will play significant role on performance, employ-

ees with high motivation are more anxious about their performance because the
more challenging goals the more allowed rein employees will have to perform in
accordance with their requisite knowledge created by integrating information and
give their best because of challenging goals cues employees use skills, ability and
knowledge they possess (Latham, Seijts & Crim, 2008).

Challenging goals leads to better project performance when motivation and strate-
gies are strong enough to boost their capacities at the same time challenging goals
also demands of availability of certain tool and techniques. Herculean and challeng-
ing goals deemed to expose more information to find new determinants of specific
task by knowledge creation and sharing it among employees. Schon (1975) say
that a good management can be only considered when they have high level of lat-
itude of knowledge creation and learning in projects. Because when organizations
have specific goals and require high demand for innovation its fosters learning, em-
powerment, and new opportunities to solve problems as knowledge creation take
place and achieve desired project performance, it also boost them by enthusiasm,
supportive mechanism.

Teams in projects always learned by involvement of previous projects because it

helps them to develop new strategies, tool and techniques that can be useful to
attain laborious actions or chunks of the project. Nonaka (2000) articulates that
every organization that do project their strategies always vary from project to
project because in projects every time situation is different and changing environ-
ment helps to create knowledge creation process more efficiently as projects chal-
lenging goals are divided into chunks among teams to obtain favorable outcomes.
New knowledge yielded though formation of knowledge creation as knowledge give
edge in development of new competence in the projects and effect performance of
project (West & Meyer, 1997). Knowledge creation is a course of action that de-
pends on individual’s experience and variety of projects, when management work
as a cohesive team they will share information of existing issues in same kind of
projects.
Literature Review 16

Knowledge creation is not only associated with creation of new ideas but also actu-
ate the limit of knowledge in the organization so with challenging goals it investi-
gates issues that hinders the project performance (van Aalst, 2009). When project
base organization starts a new project they need to set expedite and challenging
goals with various strategic, decision knowledge creation spiral can advantage to
bind and align new and existing knowledge from different employees in develop-
ment of new product to enhance performance (Gold, Malhotra & Segars, 2001;
Hoegl & Schulze, 2005). Dynamic knowledge creation can enhance the capability
of the firm to meet strategic objective, challenging goals and achieve favorable
performance through innovation (Chia, 2003; Lee & Choi, 2003).

Knowledge creation is critical aspect as it brings opportunity for projects to boost

proficiency to prolong competitive edge as new knowledge make them enable to
introduce new product and improve existing in efficient manner (Nonaka & Konno,
1998). Knowledge creation take place when management decide to set challeng-
ing goals for projects and knowledge creation appears spontaneously to resolve
specific problems related to performance, encourage change and innovation which
ultimately caters high project performance (Von Krogh, Nonaka & Rechsteiner,
2012).

Knowledge creation act as analytical enabler for innovation and performance, when
organization have challenging goals knowledge creation helps to determine that
how much and in what direction to improve to meet project performance and
success parameters (Esterhuizen, Schutte & Toit, 2012). Knowledge in projects
serves as capital, it helps the management to compete the rivals of the relevant
domain (Wang & Noe, 2010). Knowledge creation mediates between challenging
goals and project performance as Kao and Wu (2012) articulates that knowledge
creation has high positive link with performance through process of learning al-
low individuals to accumulate goal related knowledge, experiences when they are
assigned a goal.

Knowledge creation is well known as skills and novelty in literature and termed
as in what ways corporations, different organizations and projects develop the
required concept to sustain innovation and performance (Bergman, Jantunen &
Literature Review 17

Saksa, 2004). Challenging goals with shared vision always carry the element of
knowledge creation as goals boosts the mechanism of sharing opinion, only specific
goals force the employees in the organization to hold their ideas in one place to
handle prejudice tasks and achieve desired product in shape of project (Chow &
Chan, 2008). In challenging goal setting knowledge creation mediates the perfor-
mance of project, distinct and challenging goals tend to rely on employees and
knowledge creation is the key input in this process and will be employed to at-
tach in new and specific ways to provide worth to customer and influence the
performance (Li, Huang & Tsai, 2009).

Literature about learning and creativity says that innovation is stem of creativ-
ity and when goals are challenging they require innovation through individual’s
attitude towards creativity, creativity lead to knowledge creation and learning in
projects (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby & Herron, 1996). In projects innovation
brings competitive edge through unique benefits of the projects and when em-
ployees are considered to take risk for new idea by making trials on tasks it will
encourages them and gave new learning for the new projects. Knowledge creation
helps to build rational about making decision or sudden choices (Mukherjee, Lapre
& Van Wassenhove, 1998).

Empirical literature shows that there is positive relation between knowledge cre-
ation and performance (Bontis, Crossan & Hulland, 2002). In projects if any stage
causing delay management must address the issue, route causes then gather data
and have a critical view to solve it through developed tools and techniques from
past projects to coup the problem. Even after making changes in plan problem
is not solved then they repeat the whole process or else whatever seems require-
ment of the time. Interaction among member and learning have positive impact
on knowledge quality and performance of project (Chua, 2002).

Hypothesis 2: Knowledge Creation positively mediates the relationship

between the Challenging Goals and Project Performance.
Literature Review 18

2.3 Moderating role of Self-Efficacy between Knowl-

edge Creation and Project Performance

Self-efficacy means one’s believe on himself and developing a prudence with ca-
pabilities that how to formulate and establish an action plan to attain designed
performance. Self-efficacy has its significant importance in context of performance
as it involves one’s ability and belief to conclude specific task in desired manners
(Bandura & Wood, 1989). Self-efficacy involves individual’s capabilities that en-
force them to develop skill for better performance in the organization. Through
training, management of organization foster self-regulated learning among em-
ployees, as knowledge creation is a factor of learning and polishing skills through
challenging strategies which have positive influence on performance, learning and
self-efficacy enhances the knowledge creation and helps to obtain settled targets
of performance (Wilson & Narayan, 2016).

High level of self-efficacy boosts the chances of good performance because self-
efficacy brings the ability to take initiative, difficult tasks hike the consistency to
go for complex task (Speier & Frese, 1997). Cumings (2004) say that innovation
literature suggested that knowledge creation and sharing turns into expertise in
developing strategies as they interact with the customers for the project that are
novel and this process foster learning and creativity among employees. Day by
day projects are becoming technology based that require technical and complex
knowledge and self-efficacy in employees make them good enough to take decisions
to combat the different kind of risks in the project. Halper and Vancouver (2016)
demonstrates in their research that self-efficacy is positively and significantly re-
lated to performance and other domains.

Self-efficacy endorses adoption of high standards lead toward higher performance

because when knowledge is created then a person actually believes and have ca-
pacity to perform up to that level (Vancouver, Thompson & Williams, 2001).
Self-efficacy is considered as a cognitive ability which is widely seem to be the
best single indicator of knowledge creation and performance through learning es-
pecially on complex task and challenging goals (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Hunter,
Literature Review 19

1986). Self-efficacy beliefs should influence attributions of project performance

and these attribute in return will effect self-efficacy appraisal, self-efficacy is cor-
related with future motivation because its affect future performance on the base
of past experience individuals have, casual attribution and creating tendencies to
persist or give up (Silver, Mitchell & Gist, 1995).

Pan (2014) says teachers who have high level of self-efficacy set an example for
students to do work more effectively to enjoy gratification and joy of attaining
targets as their efficaciousness motivate them to learn about tough assignments,
learning and knowledge creation gave them satisfaction and improves their per-
formance. Self-efficacy give confidence to project teams to take active part in
project activities and do brainstorming to collect ideas and create knowledge for
desired project performance, whereas knowledge creation is linked with improving
project performance through better understanding and learning use in problem
solving heuristics for improvement of quality performance (Arumugam, Antony &
Kumar, 2013).

Self-efficacy brings the element of innovation it gives confidence by knowledge

and learning to employees and projects, performance will be judge to the extent
of innovation and creativity (Thundiyil, Chiaburu, Li & Wagner, 2016). Self-
efficacy has positive affect on knowledge creation and performance, construct of
self-efficacy brings factor of learning which is essential to increase the tendency
of knowledge creation and knowledge sharing, knowhow of technical skills and
development of strategies and promote the learning mechanism that set example
for them to learn from past projects and achieve desired performance (Zhang,
Li, Zhang & Chen, 2016). Self-efficacy gives bases to share valuable data and
information to create knowledge and awareness by which management of project
pass their verdict that in how to tackle uncertain events and involve the employees
to go for unplanned things and perform in specific part of project (Lee, Endres,
Sanjib & Intkhab, 2007).

Hypothesis 3: Self-Efficacy positively moderates the relationship be-

tween Knowledge Creation and Project Performance
Literature Review 20

2.4 Moderating role of Self-Efficacy with Chal-

lenging Goals and Project Performance

Self-efficacy has symbolic effect on employee’s enthusiasm as it has relevent impor-

tance for self-learning, the more courage and tenacity one has about his capabilities
for a specific task the more chance it has that he will actively participate to com-
pete the challenging goals with consistent performance (Blomquist, Farashah &
Thomas, 2016). Project base organizations usually do complex nature projects
that involve challenging goals and individuals who have self-efficacy in nature will
learn from the past projects and their learning and confidence help to be part of
projects tough tasks or any particular situation and perform incredible that set
example for others. High level of self-efficacy demonstrates more internal locus
control after that a person set challenging goals and perform tremendous through
his believe and ability to perform well on task (Wood & Bandura, 1989).

Self-efficacy reflects an individual’s both motivation and self-recognition explained

by Kanfer (1987, p.260) “Intentions for effort allocation” high level of self-efficacy
is linked with high level challenging goals and eventually generate higher perfor-
mance. High level of self-efficacy indicates higher learning orientation as they learn
from their past experience of projects even failure is something that brings some-
thing positive to learn for them (Philips & Gully, 1997). Self-efficacy has more
influence on project performance and challenging goals with help of training, in
training session with top management they learn new things, evaluate, pass judg-
ments and got awareness about their goals what factor motivates them to take
decision or behave in particular or uncertain situation (Hwang, Lee & Shin, 2016).

Training helps to make assessment projects that are normally for short term so
training can be for short term to teach employees by senior management to tackle
challenging of the project. Plethora past studies shown challenging goal orien-
tation has significant importance in context of training (Kozlowski et al., 2001).
Judge and Bono (2001) states that an individual with higher self-efficacy will take
a challenging goals as an appropriate occasion through which he can get expertise
Literature Review 21

and benefit from, on the other hand the one with low self-efficacy take it as un-
deserved chance or opportunity to fail, self-efficacy preserve confidence in the face
of breakdown which makes future project performance more likely. In challenging
goal setting response is a key indicator which people need in order to trace their
movement; commitment to goals which is boosted by self-efficacy and observing
the challenging goal is vibrant to task complexity to the degree task knowledge
harder to attain in complex tasks and situational limitations for (Locke & Latham,
2006).

Self-efficacy helps to set more challenges for those employees who have less self-
efficacy setting challenging goals helps to attain desired project performance but
role of project manager is also important as manager’s self-efficacy more likely
to affect performance because manger builds confidence in all project teams to
work together without bias and outcomes lead to better performance (Pan, Sun
& Chow, 2011). Self-efficacy is related to both task persistence and ability to
evaluate performance, concerning persistence in performance, self-efficacy expec-
tations contain a motivational component that determines when and how long one
will engage in overt behaviors to produce a desired outcome of project Bandura
(1986), when a person aspires to a challenging goal he or she is more apt to exert
the self-monitoring and to sustain the effort (Bouffard-Bouchard, 1990).

Bandura and Cervone (1983); Taylor, Locke, Lee and Gist (1984) identified self-
efficacy is an influential construct which lays an important mechanism and strengthen
the process of challenging goals and project performance. Self-efficacy helps to
enjoy advantages from participation in challenging tasks as it foster learning if
one has high self-efficacy have more concern with challenging goals and their goals
commitment is more than those employees how have low self-efficacy because com-
mitment gave motivation to perform in extraordinary ways (Wilson et al., 2016).
Goal commitment only came in existence when management gave employees em-
powerment of taking decision and management give that kind of authority to one
who is strong enough and learned from experiences to perform with excellences in
challenging situations.
Literature Review 22

Self-regulation resources like self-efficacy with challenging goals contribute to cre-

ate high performance cycle such as availability of enactive proficient resources
boost self-efficacy which in turn enhances project performance through challenging
goals (Brown, Jones & Leigh, 2005). Cognitive ability, self-efficacy and challeng-
ing goals each influenced performance (Judge, Jackson, Shaw, Scot & Rich, 2007).
Self-efficacy is a thought that tend to lead the employees to boost the difficulty
about setting challenging personal goals as self-set goals enable success and the
whole process will restore more sustained effort when level of self-efficacy is high
hence, it will facilitate performance and ultimately exhibit linear relation with
challenging goals (Schmidt & DeShon, 2010).

A leader with high level of self-efficacy gave confidence to individual that what
they have learned from new or past project can apply previous projects lessons to
coup present situation to achieve desired results, it become a reason of perks and
promotion in the project because when the top management find employees too
much attractive and committed to their challenging task they set their position in
the project hierarchy (Seibert, Sargent, Kraimer & Kiazad, 2017). In organizations
top management always keep an eye on the employees like who actively participate
in challenging situation and who try even through hit and trial and motivated to
get desired outcome will be rewarded. Extrinsic reward when used as instrument
to enhance the creativity, and with self-efficacy employees orient and generate
novel solutions to give cornerstone the challenging goals (Argote & Miron-Spektor,
2011).

Goal are intrinsic part of enthusiasm and knowledge which results in self-efficacy as
employees have challenging goals, goals give them motivation to put least effort to
get desired objective and element of self-efficacy take in existence when they make
comparison of their targeted goals with what they have settled to achieve and then
assessment with self-efficacy help to retain motivation among employees (Schunk,
2003). Nature of goals at time determine the level of self-efficacy because when
goals are easily to achieve people will put less efforts because goals that are easy to
achieve have limited scope but when goals scope is large self-motivated learner do
more tries to achieve difficult goals, as goals nature set the performance parameters
Literature Review 23

.Situation intimations help to employees motivate for good performance because

situational factors involve the atmosphere, strategies, availability of knowledge
and resources and mechanism of evaluation (Mangos & Steele-Johnson, 2001).

Hypothesis 4: Self-Efficacy positively moderates the relationship be-

tween Challenging Goals and Project Performance.

2.5 Research Model

Figure 2.1: Conceptual Model

Literature Review 24

2.6 Hypothesis

Hypothesis 1:

Challenging goals have positive and significant relationship with Project Perfor-
mance.

Hypothesis 2:

Knowledge Creation positively mediates the relationship between the Challenging

Goals and Project Performance.

Hypothesis 3:

Self-Efficacy positively moderates the relationship between Knowledge Creation

and Project Performance.

Hypothesis 4:

Self-Efficacy positively moderates the relationship between Challenging Goals and

Project Performance
Chapter 3

Methdology

This chapter exhibits the comprehensive methodology of the study. It comprises

of research design, techniques for collection of data and instruments. This re-
search work is about the relationship between Challenging Goals and Project
Performance, with mediating role of Knowledge Creation and moderating role
of Self-Efficacy.

3.1 Research Design

In order to figure out the defined result of this study research design has been
explained below.

3.1.1 Purpose of the Study

• To investigate the impact of Challenging Goals and Project Performance.

• To explain the mediating role of knowledge Creation and with challenging

goals and project performance.

• To evaluate the moderating role of self-efficacy with knowledge creation and

project performance, and challenging goals and project performance in con-
text of Pakistan.

25
Methodology 26

3.1.2 Research Philosophy

Research philosophy consists of work that includes all paradigms of research ele-
ment which exist in the circle of knowledge. Research philosophy has four types;
pragmatism, realism, positivism and interpretivism (Saunders & Lewis, 2012).
This study follows the hypothetical deductive research method which is based on
determinism philosophy, which in past literature already explained and support
the hypothesis and will be tested proposed hypothesis through empirical verifica-
tion.

Generally quantitative methods are appreciated and used for large scale of popula-
tion. Hence for explaining the relationship between the variables use in research in
this study quantitative research has been used to collect for the purpose of quality
data.

3.1.3 Type of Study

The nature of this study is quantitative and data is collected through survey
based methodology from the project managers and teams working and employees
on clusters of the energy and power plant projects.

3.1.4 Unit of Analysis

In current study the distinctive or fundamental characteristics for analyzing is the

unit of analysis. Proposed study’s unit of analysis is individual, whereas unit of
analysis could be from group to different individuals, organizations and culture
etc. This study focusing on effects of challenging goals on project performance
through self-efficacy. To determine project performance among employees. There
is need to access specific regions of project base organizations which will tend to
improve and boost their performance in different project tasks. In this study, unit
of analysis was project managers and employees of government sector project base
organizations of Islamabad, Lahore and Jauharabad.
Methodology 27

3.1.5 Study Setting

For the purpose of collecting data respondents were contacted online.

3.1.6 Time Horizon

Saunders & Lewis (2012) has describe two dimensions of time horizon; Cross-
sectional and Logitudinal.In cross-sectional we have limited time so it can be
conducted in specific period of time whereas logitudinal study have no limitation
of time and data can be collected frequently from respondents. This research work
is cross-sectional in nature and data is collected in two months.

3.2 Instrumentation

The questionnaires were selected from different credible sources and through these
questionnaire data was collected. Questionnaires were distributed in English.
About 50-60 questionnaires were dispersed in every single project base organi-
zation contacted online for quick response. According to previous researches, col-
lecting data online is the fastest and convenient way, because respondents have
comfort to fill their responses as compared to filling questionnaires manually be-
sides what are method of data collection as there is no symbolic impact on the
quality of data while choosing any of two methods aforementioned (Church, Elliot
& Gable, 2001).

All the items i.e CG, KC, PP and SE filled by the employees and project managers.
All responses of the questionnaire are taken 5-points Likert scale where 1 represents
(strongly disagree), 2 represents (disagree), 3 represents (Neutral), 4 represents
(agree) and 5 represents strongly agree. All these scales were ratified testing
them through reliability analysis. The questionnaire includes 24 items and having
total 5 sections comprises demographics, Challenging Goals, Project Performance,
Knowledge Creation, and Self-Efficacy.

Information about demographics includes Gender, Age, Qualification and Expe-

rience also collected in order to make the results more reliable and accurate and
Methodology 28

intimating participants that information will be kept secret. 300 questionnaires

were distributed in total but only 290 were received back, but the actual number
of questioners used for data analysis and generating results were 281.The dis-
carded questionnaires out of 290 questionnaires were incomplete, many of them
not completely filled and suitable for further analysis.

3.2.1 Ethical Consideration

With all questionnaire that cover with the introductory letter giving explanation
about the purpose and significance of the study, with assurance that all the data
collected from respondents will be confidential and results generated from analysis
with be strictly use for academic purposes.

3.2.2 Challenging Goals

Instrument for Challenging Goals is constructed by Lindermanet al. (2006) that

contains 3 items. Sample items includes “We found it very difficult to achieve the
project goals”. The reliability was 0.633 to 0.791 of this measurement.

3.2.3 Knowledge Creation

Instrument for Knowledge creation is constructed by Choo, Linderman, & Schroeder,

(2007) that comprise 3 items. Items are “The team generated many ideas while
doing the projects”. Its reliability was 0.7.

3.2.4 Project Performance

Instrument for Project Performance was primitively developed by Nidumolu, (1995)

but adopted from Ching Gu, Hoffman, Cao and Schniederjans (2014) that com-
prises 8 items. Items included “Projects are completed on time”. This scale had
reliability 0.69.
Methodology 29

3.2.5 Self Efficacy

Questionnaire of self-efficacy is constructed by Sherer and Maddux (1982) . Total

items are 10. Sample item included “When I make plans, I am certain I can make
them work “. The scale had reliability 0.86.

Table 3.1: Instruments.

Variables Source Item

Challenging Lindermanet, Schroeder and 3
Goal (IV) Choo (2006)
Knowledge Cre- Choo, Linderman, and 3
ation (Med) Schroeder (2007)
Project Perfor- Ching Gu, Hoffman, Cao, 8
mance (DV) and Schniederjans (2014)
Self-efficacy Sherer and Maddux (1982) 10
(Mod)

3.3 Data Collection

3.3.1 Population

All set of cases encountered to drawn a sample is called population (Wilson, 2014).
Getting answers of all research questions from entire population is not easy. In this
study the population includes the project managers and different project teams
who are working in power plant projects of Lahore, Islamabad and Jauharabad.

3.3.2 Sample

Sampling is a procedure commonly used for data collection and drawn through
nonprobability technique and probability. It is not easy to collect data from the
whole population due to shortage of time and limited resources and convenient
sampling is used to choose sample for analyzing data. In convenient sampling some
representatives have been chosen for the representatives of the entire population.
Methodology 30

Organization that were selected as sample have well known experience about the
challenging goals. So the sample which is selected for proposed study shows all
the components which are required to get results they are ideal representatives of
entire population.

In this research, convenient sampling used as convenient sampling comes under the
tree of non-probability techniques of sampling. In convenient sampling technique
collection of data takes place in an unarranged manner which gives base on the
feasibility so that the data should be collected productively. Hence convenient
sampling is the most suitable technique. Because the data could be collected
from any project base organization in Pakistan in unarranged manner. This will
exhibit the complete scenario in expressing the impact of challenging goals on
project performance with mediating role of knowledge creation and moderating
role of self-efficacy.

Our main target area is project base organizations of Pakistan; since this work is
devoted against the performance of power plant projects. This sample have em-
ployees and project managers of different levels therefore; the self-reported ques-
tionnaire will be used to collect data. There were 300 questioners circulated in
different organizations. Data collected from respondents were kept confidential
and respondents were also guaranteed about confidentiality.

3.3.3 Sample Characteristics

The demographics of this study includes the; project manager’s and employee’s
age, gender, work experience of project manager and employees in the field of
project management, project manager’s and employee’s qualification.

Sample characteristics are mentioned below in tables:

3.3.3.1 Gender

Gender is important element of demographics as it divides the population into

female and male. In this research study it shown in the succeeding table 3.2 that
ratio of the male respondents higher than female respondents.
Methodology 31

Table 3.2: Represent Gender Percentage

Gender Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent
Male 202 71.9 71.9 71.9
Female 79 28.1 28.1 100
Total 281 100 100

Table 3.2 shows that in the sample size of 281 male are 71.9% and 28.1 female.
Result shows that male percentage is higher.

3.3.3.2 Age

People usually don’t like to disclose their age and feel hesitation. So for keep-
ing in the view ease of respondents different age ranges were mentioned in the
questionnaire to collect data about age’s of respondents.

Table 3.3: Represent Respondent’s Age Distribution.

Age Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent
18-25 55 19.6 19.6 19.6
26-33 52 18.5 18.5 38.1
34-41 118 42 42 80.1
42-49 52 18.5 18.5 98.6
50 and above 4 1.4 1.4 100
Total 281 100 100

Table 3.3 shows the different age ranges of sample population.19.6 % of respondents
age were between 18-25, 18.5% of respondents were of 26-33, 42% of respondents
were between 34-41, 18.5% of sample population were range of 42-49 and 1.4%
of respondent’s age were in the range of 50 and above. The higher percentage of
results were in the range of 18-25.
Methodology 32

3.3.3.3 Qualification

Education is an important factor of demographics because education helps to cre-

ate knowledge which passes through generation to generation and then nation.
Education helps to create competitive edge in project and lead them to perform
better that why in this study questionnaire section of demographics include re-
spondent’s qualification in table below:

Table 3.4: Respondent’s Qualification

Qualification Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent
Matric 1 0.4 0.4 0.4
Inter 11 3.9 3.9 4.3
Bachelor 106 37.7 37.7 42
Master 111 39.5 39.5 81.5
MS / M.Phil 49 17.4 17.4 98.9
PhD 3 1.1 1.1 100
Total 281 100 100

Table 3.4 shows result about qualification of respondents. Matric pass percent
was 0.4% ,respondents having inter degree were 3.9%, 37.7% hold bachelor degree,
master qualified were 39.5% , 17.4% of respondents holding MS/M,Phil and PhD
holders were 1.1%.

3.3.3.4 Experience

Work experience in specific field of an organization matters a lot because through

the learning work experience, one can bring innovation and creativity in the work.
For getting data of respondent’s experience we used different time range for the
convenience of respondents.
Methodology 33

Table 3.5: Respondent’s Experience

Experience Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent
0-5 153 54.4 54.4 54.4
06-10 60 21.3 21.3 75.7
11-16 48 17.1 17.1 92.8
17-22 11 4 4 96.8
23-28 6 2.1 2.1 98.9
29 and above 3 1.1 3 100
Total 281 100 100

Table 3.5: Shows experience of respondents. 54.4% of the sample population have
work experience in range of 0-5, 21.3% have 6-10 years, 17.1% were in the range of
11-16, 4% have experience in the range 17-22, 2.1% have experience in the range
of 23-28 and 29 and above are of 1.1% of sample population.

3.4 Statistical Tools

To test hypothesis of this study Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) technique

used for data analysis. For analysis of data IBM SPSS 20.0 was used. To analyze
the causal relationship between the independent variable i.e. challenging goals and
dependent variable i.e. Project performance single linear regression was used. Re-
gression analysis helps to indicate either the acceptance or rejection of hypothesis
that have support of previous studies in literature or not.

The objective behind using regressing analysis indicate that various factors that
may affect the dependent variable (Project Performance). For conducting further
analysis on data Preacher and Hayes (2004) three steps was practiced. These three
steps include putting the demographics in covariant column and dependent vari-
able i.e. Project Performance in the outcome column and independent variable i.e.
Challenging Goals in the independent column. While performing these, we need to
Methodology 34

select a model for moderation and mediation. In preacher and Hayes method mod-
eration and mediation checked separately. For moderation and mediation model
14 is used in the analysis.

3.5 Pilot Testing

The table shows the reliability analysis of all the variable of this study. For pilot
testing we collected 50 questionnaires from respondents and 46 questionnaires are
undertaken for reliability analysis. The result shows that there is no problem
detected in scales of this study.

3.6 Reliability Analysis

Reliability analysis is used to check the properties of scales that used for analysis
and their different elements of variables. It also analysis the consistency between
variables and existence of relationship between variables. A scale is considered
reliable when it generates same results in different situations. Cronbach’s Alpha
value should be equal to or above 0.7 is considered significant. If the value of
Cronbach’s Alpha is less than 0.7 it is not reliable to measure the construct. Higher
the value of Cronbach’s Alpha has higher chances of measuring the constructs.

Table 3.6: Scale Reliability.

Variables Cronbach’s No. of No. of Items

Alpha Items Items Removed*
(Before) (After)
Challenging 0.703 3 3 –
Goals
Knowledge 0.801 3 3 –
Creation
Project Perfor- 0.714 8 8 –
mance
Self-efficacy 0.845 10 10 –
Methodology 35

In present study Cronbach’s Alpha value of challenging goals is 0.703, the Cronbach
value of knowledge creation is 0.801, the project performance Cronbach’s value is
0.714 and self-efficacy is 0.845. Value of knowledge creation and self-efficacy is
high which indicates both scales are highly reliable.

3.7 Data Analysis Techniques

The data gathered from 281 respondents analyzed on SPSS software. Following
techniques were performed to analyze the data;

1. Questions that filled correctly were chosen for analysis.

2. The collected data of variables was coded and that coded data used for
analysis.

3. Frequency table was developed to describe the characteristics of sample.

4. Through numerical value the descriptive statistics developed.

5. Reliability analysis of all study variables was conducted to find the Cronbach
alpha.

6. Correlation was performed to identify whether there is a significant relation

in variables or not.

7. Preacher and Hayes method was used to run mediation and moderation
and to find the mediating and moderating role in independent variable and
dependent variable.

8. For any probable rejection and acceptance of hypothesis; the proposed hy-
pothesis was verified by using Preacher and Hayes method and correlation.
Chapter 4

Results

4.1 Results for hypothesized variables

4.1.1 Descriptive Analysis

The descriptive statistics done to calculate the standardized values of the all study
variables and it is used to summarize the data in the form of tables. Descriptive
statistics includes the total sample size of study, maximum, minimum value, mean
and standard deviation.
Table 4.1: Descriptive Analysis

Variables N Min Max Mean SD

Challenging Goals 281 2.67 5 3.835 0.64171
Knowledge Creation 281 2.5 5 3.75 0.5231
Project Performance 281 2 4.9 3.45 0.66615
Self-efficacy 281 2.5 4.83 3.665 0.40092

Table 4.1 shows the standard and mean value of targeted variables of study. In
variables column all variables (challenging goals, Knowledge creation, project per-
formance and self-efficacy) are measured on 5 point likert scale where 1 is “strongly
disagree” and 5 is “strongly agree”. Mean value exhibits the extract of all re-
sponses. Challenging goals is an independent variable has mean value 3.835 and
a standard deviation of 0.64171. Knowledge creation which acts as a mediator
36
Results 37

between challenging goals and project performance having mean of 3.75 and stan-
dard deviation of 0.52310. Project performance is the dependent variable of the
study has a mean value of 3.45 and a standard deviation 0.66615. Self-efficacy is
the moderator; has mean value of 3.665 and a standard deviation of 0.40092.

4.1.2 Correlation Analysis

Correlation analysis done to for the purpose to ratify the link between variable of
the study. Correlation analysis is undertake to check the proposed hypothesis and
discovering relationship of challenging goals and project performance with medi-
ating role of knowledge creation and moderating role of self-efficacy. It gives view
about the degree how variables vary together at the same time or not. To mea-
sure the strength or weakness of association between variables Pearson correlation
analysis is used it range from -0.1 to 0.1. With the help to calculated values, we
can make decision about the strength of relationship of targeted variables, their
values can be generalized by judging their distance from zero.

Interpretation of data can be done in a way that if value is distant from zero there
is strong association between variables. And if calculated value is zero it means
that there is no association between variables. Type of relation identified through
positive, negative sign. Direct relation has positive sign and negative sign indicates
negative relation, if one variables increase and other decreases it exhibits indirect
relation.
Results 38

Table 4.2: Pearson Correlation.

CG KC Mean PP Mean SE Mean

Mean
CG Person Correla- 1
Mean tion
Sig,(2-tailed)
KC Person Correla- .569** 1
Mean tion
Sig,(2-tailed) 0.0000
PP Person Correla- .359** .325** 1
Mean tion
Sig,(2-tailed) 0.0000 0.0000
SE Person Correla- .672** .424** .399** 1
Mean tion
Sig,(2-tailed) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Correlation is significant at 0.01 levels (2-tailed)

N = 281, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0,001 (CG = Challenging Goals, KC = Knowledge Creation, PP =
Project Performance, SE = Self-Efficacy)

The correlation results shown in table 4.2 are as follow:

There is positive and significant relation between challenging goals and project
performance, were r = .359** at p < 0.01. It can be seen in the aforementioned
table challenging goals has positive relation with knowledge creation, where r =
.569** at p < 0.01. Table above exhibit a positive correlation between challeng-
ing goals and self-efficacy, where r = .672** at p < 0.01. Knowledge creation
has positive relationship with project performance, where r = .325** at p < 0.01.
A positive relation can be seen in correlation table about self-efficacy and project
performance, where r = .399** at p< 0.01. Self-efficacy has significantly positively
correlated with knowledge creation, where r = .424** at p < 0.01.

4.1.3 Regression Analysis

To analyze the existence of relationship between the variables of study we have

performed correlation analysis. And regression analysis done to check the depen-
dency of one variable on the other variable. Actually regression analysis shows
Results 39

the point at which one variable depends on the other variable i.e. independent
variable at which point it is being regressed.

Table 4.3: Regression Analysis

Figure 4.1: Mediated Model

Results 40

Figure 4.2: Coefficients of mediated model

The aforementioned table shows that challenging goals have significant and direct
positive relation with project performance. Hence, the un-standardized regression
co-efficient demonstrates that (β = .30, t = 3.83, p = .00). These values provide
justification for hypothesis H1 i.e. “Challenging goals have positive relation with
Project performance”. Results indicate that challenging goals have positive asso-
ciation with knowledge creation (β = .55, t = 11.56, p = .00) whereas knowledge
creation has positive relation with project performance value of un-standardized
regression co-efficient specify (β = .21, t = 2.64, p = .00). Table 4.3 indicates
that knowledge creation mediates the relationship between challenging goals and
project performance, as the indirect effect of challenging goals on project perfor-
mance through knowledge creation has the lower limit of .04 and upper limit of
.18 and there is no zero value in the bootstrapped 95% confidence interval. So, it
is concluded that the hypothesis H2 i.e. “Knowledge creation positively mediates
between the Challenging goals and Project performance” is accepted. Results indi-
cate that Self-efficacy acts as moderator between Knowledge creation and Project
performance, the un-standardized regression analysis indicates (β = -.20 t = -1.97
p = 0.4), here the hypothesis H3 i.e. “Self-efficacy moderates the relationship be-
tween Knowledge creation and Project performance: such that if the self-efficacy is
high than the relationship between Knowledge creation and Project performance
would be high “ is accepted p = 0.04 show the significance confidence interval
Results 41

95% and no zero value present leads to the acceptance of the H3 hypothesis. It’s
been concluded from table 4.3, self-efficacy does not act as a moderator between
challenging goals and project performance as indicated by un-standardized regres-
sion analysis (β = -.18, t = -1.73, p = .08), that’s the reason that hypothesis
H4 i.e. “Self-efficacy moderates the relationship of Challenging goals and Project
performance” such that it weakens or strengthens the relation is rejected because
p = .08 that shows an insignificant value and there is a zero at bootstrapped 95%
of the confidence interval.

4.2 Summary of Accepted and Rejected Hypoth-

esis

Table 4.4: Hypothesis Summary.

Hypothesis Statement Result

H1 Challenging goals have positive Accepted
and significant relationship with
Project Performance.
H2 Knowledge Creation positively Accepted
mediates the relationship be-
tween the Challenging Goals
and Project Performance.
H3 Self-Efficacy positively moder- Accepted
ates the relationship between
Knowledge Creation and
Project Performance.
H4 Self-Efficacy positively moder- Rejected
ates the relationship between
Challenging Goals and Project
Performance.
Chapter 5

Discussion and Conclusion

5.1 Introduction

This chapter includes the detailed discussion about relationship of hypothesis, rea-
soning for acceptance and rejection of hypothesis, also the theoretical and practical
implication, with strengths and weakness of study, limitations and future direc-
tions of the study.

5.2 Discussion

The main objective of this study is to detect the impact of Challenging goals on
project performance, with mediating role of knowledge creation and moderating
role of Self-efficacy.

Results show that challenging goals was positively associated with both project
performance and knowledge creation, the relationship of challenging goals and
project performance was mediated by knowledge creation. The results indicate
that moderating variable i.e. self-efficacy has significant relation with knowledge
creation and project performance, and has insignificant relation with challenging
goals and project performance.

The detailed explanation of hypothesis is discussed below:

42
Discussion and Conclusion 43

5.2.1 Challenging Goals and Project Performance

H1: There is positive and significant relationship between Challenging Goals and
Project Performance.

First hypothesis one is accepted because results show the significant relationship
that (β = .30, t = 3.83, p = .00). The t-value indicates in results that their
existence of positively significant relationship, relationship is considered significant
when t value is greater than 2. Thus, t value of 3.83 shows a positive significant
relationship between challenging goals and project performance. The β co-efficient
of .30 indicates the chances if there is a change in one unit of challenging goals
then project performance will increase 30%. As findings suggest that challenging
goals enhances project performance. Goal setting place evidence that prejudice
goals increase performance and productivity (Locke & Latham, 1990). Challenging
goals are seeming to be tough in first but when employees put them into routine it
becomes easy to tackle the problems regarding performance. Organizations must
have a clear picture of challenging goals as when they know what to achieve they
are motivated by specific goals and increase their productivity (Gutierrz et al.,
2009; Linderman et al., 2003).

Goals stimulate human action that regulated behavior toward attainment of chal-
lenging goals. Goal attainment forces them to focus on their specific task and
ignore other certain activates to their them as a result goals level of difficulty is
correlated with performance (Weldon & Weingart, 1993). Challenging goals be-
come difficult over the time when challenging goals are settled for the groups and
as individuals for the groups contribute maximally to achieve group performance
(Kleingeld et al., 2011). Challenging group goals are proportional to group per-
formance as members of adhesive teams are more prone to take part in define
patterns of behavior to achieve success (O’Leary-Kelly et al., 1994).

Most probably the logic for acceptance of this hypothesis is that projects in nature
are complex because of this they need project manager’s consideration which plays
a vibrant role in attain project goals and achieving desired performance. In project
members of teams are in dire need of regular guidance about how to use tools and
Discussion and Conclusion 44

techniques to performance their part of task with in time, budget limit and within
available resources; all these fall in factor list that lead toward project success.

5.2.2 Mediating Role of Knowledge Creation

H2: Knowledge Creation positively mediates the relationship between Challenging

Goals and Project Performance.

Hypothesis about mediation effect got accepted. The results indicate that sig-
nificance of relationship of knowledge creation as a mediator between challenging
goals and project performance. The upper limit is .18 and lower limit is .04 pre-
sented by the unstandardized regression co-efficient values are positive and there is
no existence of zero value of negative value in the bootstrapped at 95% confidence
interval over the indirect effect of the relationship of challenging goals and project
performance though knowledge creation. Locke (1967) postulates the evidences
about the challenging goals with plentiful ability of knowledge creation have di-
rect positive relation with task performance. Locke and Bryan (1968) provide
indirect cushion to hypothesis as knowledge creation solemnly have no effect on
performance score but when they are gathered with defined description challeng-
ing goals have significant impact on performance through knowledge creation in
the organization.

Critics stated that knowledge creation has positively significant relation with ref-
erence to performance and productivity through creativity (Davenport & Prusak,
1998; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Knowledge creation also improves the decision
making power of organization that put effect on performance (Mukherjee et al.,
1998; Kogut & Zander, 1992). Organizational knowledge give room to knowledge
creation for competitive edge as knowledge give awareness about how to make qual-
ity product as this competition through knowledge creation make foundation for
increase in performance though goals are challenging, and knowledge creation have
significant relation with performance (Linderman, Schroeder & Sander, 2010).

The right and require chunk of knowledge to develop a product should be accu-
rately disseminating to the teams so that they can deliver the right product in the
Discussion and Conclusion 45

market. Often in organizations, 90 percent of knowledge is tacit. To continue for

long run the knowledge creation is important for gazette success of the project. It
is a paramount that is being recommended in other industries as well it is fairly
important in energy power industry. So, for long term in industries and consis-
tently occurring at the top of project management company’s knowledge creation
should be given proper attention and focus. If demand chunk of challenging goals
is not shared then it become difficult for teams to make updates in the project
plan and get desired performance using specific methodologies.

5.2.3 Moderating Role of Self-Efficacy between Knowledge

Creation and Project Performance

H3: Self-efficacy positively moderates the relationship between Knowledge Cre-

ation and Project Performance

Hypothesis got accepted because results of current study indicates the significance
of relationship values of interaction terms (knowledge creation with self-efficacy)
β = -.20, p = 0.4. Value of p should be less than 0.05 and 0.04 as it indicates
significant effect of self-efficacy as a moderator between knowledge creation and
project performance. The unstandardized co-efficient regression beta (β = -.20)
value shows one unit change in self-efficacy will bring negative 20% change in
project performance.

Empirical studies identified self-efficacy effects the relation of knowledge creation

and project performance because self-efficacy through training session with em-
ployees brings a sense learning and knowledge creation foster thorough learning
which helps to bring motivation and persistence to achieve performance results
(Seijt & Latham, 2011). Self-efficacy is the intrinsic part of self-governance as
self-efficacy make capable individual to perform challenging task with success, be-
cause self-efficacy reflects the motivation one gain through skill and knowledge
they have created (Wilson & Narayan, 2016).
Discussion and Conclusion 46

5.2.4 Moderating Self-Efficacy between Challenging Goals

and Project Performance

H4: Self-efficacy positively moderates the relationship between challenging goal

and project performance

This hypothesis got rejected as p value is .08 that is high level of insignificance in
the relationship. The value of B coefficient is -.18 which indicates if one unit of
change in the self-efficacy then it will a negative impact of 18%. Challenging goals
instigate curtailment in the self-efficacy can be notably disturbing for individuals
as self-efficacy is the perceptions are forthcoming of putting effort, persistence and
involvement for a task. Self-efficacy give confidence to performance challenging
task but at the same time goals may bring competition among teams of project
and reduce the overall performance.

Setting challenging goals may not enhance the performance because of employees,
goal acceptance is a factor that effect performance of employees and affect their
efficacy. Challenging goals sometimes creates stress among project team and lead
to low performance. There are certain other factors like organizations climate,
manager’s behavior with employees, deadline for deliverables, reward mechanism
of organization will effect on challenging goal setting and performance. This study
gives a brief understanding about relation of self-efficacy between the challenging
goals and project performance. Because challenging goals bring persistence and
passion towards work. Mastery goals demand employees to resolve their problems
in a creative way. Furthermore, when employees are provided supervision and
guideline it enhances their performance as employees feel satisfied with organiza-
tion’s management.

5.3 Theoretical and Practical Implication

This study endows the recent domain in preceding literature where the relation-
ship of challenging goals was investigated with other variables knowledge creation
Discussion and Conclusion 47

and six sigma project. This study make addition in literature of project man-
agement by implementing challenging goals in the project base organization can
be favorable for obtain successful project. In theoretical perspective, this research
study test knowledge creation a variable of importance as it defines a path between
challenging goals and project performance. Hence this work comes with under-
standing of the underpinning theory which affect the self-efficacy of employee’s
behavior through goal setting theory. From plentiful practical implication of pro-
posed study includes that this study describe challenging goals increase the chance
of attaining profit from the project success. Factor of self-efficacy boost the man-
ager to give chances to the employees to handle the difficult task empowerment
enchases the performance and overall activity of the project.

Second this study bring commitment among staff of project for the success of the
organization and project, manager must allow the employees to give their views
for a particular aspect. Giving importance to their views make them to feel that
employees need to put more effort to attain settled millstones. Working in teams
bring innovation through knowledge creation, as knowledge always created by
individuals when their organization have strategic goals foster by self-efficacy give
a belief them that they have enough knowledge to handle the uncertain changes
if occur in the process of attain goals.

5.4 Strengths, Limitations and Future Directions

This study based on strong methodological method, in order to lessen the prospec-
tus effects of common bias and single source bias data. We collect data of challeng-
ing goals, project performance, knowledge creation and self-efficacy from manager
and employees of the power plants, project base organizations in Pakistan. This
finds that one who is capable to learn more and perform difficult task in an efficient
manner enhance performance of the project

It is obvious that cultural differences in specific contextual setting affect the many
factors, in the similar setting to all other research of social sciences and this is
the main limitation of this study. Furthermore, due to limited time resource
Discussion and Conclusion 48

constraints as this research work is conducted to sectional fulfillment of MS de-

gree requirements, limited time did not allow to expand the research on broader
level. Data was collected from power plants project of Islamabad, Lahore and
Jauharabad and sample size consist of 281 respondents which is not ample to
show a factual image of power plants, in the fully world.

Because of limited time, only one mediator and moderator is studied but the future
research can broaden the model and observe the other structure that affect the
existence of challenging goal and influence the project performance. For further
research it is recommended that some model can be tested on the personality
traits, emotional intelligence and work environment factors in other project sector
and may generate different results in comparison to this study.

5.5 Conclusion

The proposed study conducted to explore the impact of challenging goals on

project performance and mediating role of knowledge creation along with moder-
ating role of self-efficacy. Goal setting theory we used as supporting theory for
defining the relationship of variables, and this research work was conducted in con-
textual setting of project base organization results wind up that challenging goals
play an important role to project performance and in project base organization.

The major contribution of present study is that the current study has denoted a lot
in literature because a very limited work found which has been done on the impact
of challenging goals on project performance with mediating role of knowledge
creation and moderating role of self-efficacy. Four hypothesis of this research are
tested in this concern, hypothesis (H: 1, H: 2, H: 3) are accepted and hypothesis
(H; 4) is rejected in Pakistani context. We confer with all the justifications of the
rejected and accepted hypothesis and the theoretical and practical implication of
study also explained. Teams in projects must be allowed to give creative solutions
of problems to break the structural barrio and enhance performance. To enhance
their capabilities for enhancing performance team must have the availability of
Discussion and Conclusion 49

certain tools and techniques, training sessions and supervisory support to tackle
technical aspect of the project.
Bibliography

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing
the work environment for creativity. Academy of management journal, 39(5),
1154 - 1184.

Archer, N. P., & Ghasemzadeh, F. (1999). An integrated framework for project

portfolio selection. International Journal of Project Management, 17(4), 207
- 216.

Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing knowledge in organiza-
tions: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management
science, 49(4), 571 - 582.

Argote, L., & Miron - Spektor, E. (2011). Organizational learning: From experi-
ence to knowledge. Organization science, 22(5), 1123 - 1137.

Arumugam, V., Antony, J., & Kumar, M. (2013). Linking learning and knowledge
creation to project success in Six Sigma projects: An empirical investigation.
International Journal of Production Economics, 141(1), 388 - 402.

Arumugam, V., Antony, J., & Linderman, K. (2016). The influence of challenging
goals and structured method on Six Sigma project performance: A mediated
moderation analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 254(1), 202
- 213.

Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses
and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. International
journal of project management, 17(6), 337 - 342.

50
Bibliography 51

Bandura, A., & Wood, R. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and perfor-
mance standards on self - regulation of complex decision making. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 56(5), 805.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual

review of psychology, 52(1), 1 - 26.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self - efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological review, 84(2), 191.

Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self - evaluative and self - efficacy mechanisms
governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of personality and
social psychology,45(5), 1017.

Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, W. J. (2002). Goal orientation and ability: Interactive
effects on self - efficacy, performance, and knowledge. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(3), 497.

Bergman, J., Jantunen, A., & Saksa, J. M. (2004). Managing knowledge creation
and sharingscenarios and dynamic capabilities in inter - industrial knowledge
networks. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(6), 63 - 76.

Blomquist, T., Farashah, A. D., & Thomas, J. (2016). Project management self -
efficacy as a predictor of project performance: Constructing and validating a
domain - specific scale. International Journal of Project Management, 34(8),
1417 - 1432.

Bontis, N., Crossan, M. M., & Hulland, J. (2002). Managing an organizational

learning system by aligning stocks and flows. Journal of management studies,
39(4), 437 - 469.

Bouffard - Bouchard, T. (1990). Influence of self - efficacy on performance in a

cognitive task. The journal of social Psychology, 130(3), 353 - 363.

Brown, S. P., Jones, E., & Leigh, T. W. (2005). The attenuating effect of role over-
load on relationships linking self - efficacy and goal level to work performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 972.

Brown, T. C., & Latham, G. P. (2002). The effects of behavioural outcome goals,
learning goals, and urging people to do their best on an individual’s teamwork
Bibliography 52

behaviour in a group problem - solving task. Canadian Journal of Behavioural

Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 34(4), 276.

Chan, A. P., & Chan, A. P. (2004). Key performance indicators for measuring
construction success. Benchmarking: an international journal, 11(2), 203 -
221.

Chia, R. (2003). From knowledge - creation to the perfecting of action: Tao, Basho
and pure experience as the ultimate ground of knowing. Human relations,
56(8), 953 - 981.

Chang, K. C., Yen, H. W., Chiang, C. C., & Parolia, N. (2013). Knowledge contri-
bution in information system development teams: An empirical research from
a social cognitive perspective. International Journal of Project Management,
31(2), 252 - 263.

Carrillo, J. E., & Gaimon, C. (2000). Improving manufacturing performance

through process change and knowledge creation. Management Science, 46(2),
265 - 288.

Ching Gu, V. C., Hoffman, J. J., Cao, Q., & Schniederjans, M. J. (2014). The
Effects of Organizational Culture and Environmental Pressures on IT Project
Performance: A Moderation Perspective. International Journal of Project
Management, 32(7), 1170 - 1181

Choo, A. S. (2011). Impact of a stretch strategy on knowledge creation in quality

improvement projects. IEEE Transactions on engineering management, 58(1),
87 - 96.

Choo, A. S., Linderman, K. W., & Schroeder, R. G. (2007). Method and psy-
chological effects on learning behaviors and knowledge creation in quality
improvement projects. Management Science, 53(3), 437 - 450.

Chow, W. S., & Chan, L. S. (2008). Social network, social trust and shared goals
in organizational knowledge sharing. Information & management, 45(7), 458
- 465.

Chua, A. (2002). The influence of social interaction on knowledge creation. Jour-

nal of Intellectual capital, 3(4), 375 - 392.
Bibliography 53

Clark, K. B. (1989). Project scope and project performance: the effect of parts
strategy and supplier involvement on product development. Management
science, 35(10), 1247 - 1263.

Church, M. A., Elliot, A. J., & Gable, S. L. (2001). Perceptions of classroom

environment, achievement goals, and achievement outcomes. Journal of edu-
cational psychology, 93(1), 43.

Cooke - Davies, T. (2002). The ”real” success factors on projects. International

journal of project management, 20(3), 185 - 190.

Collins, J. L. (1982). Self - efficacy and ability in achievement behavior Paper

presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research As-
sociation. New York.

Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing

in a global organization. Management science, 50(3), 352 - 364.

Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations

manage what they know. Harvard Business Press.

De Wit, A. (1988). Measurement of project success. International journal of

project management, 6(3), 164 - 170.

Dvir, D., Raz, T., & Shenhar, A. J. (2003). An empirical analysis of the relation-
ship between project planning and project success. International journal of
project management, 21(2), 89 - 95.

Earley, P. C., Connolly, T., & Ekegren, G. (1989). Goals, strategy development,
and task performance: Some limits on the efficacy of goal setting. Journal of
applied psychology, 74(1), 24.

Enriquez, V., McBride, J., & Paxton, L. (2001). Improving knowledge of strate-
gic goals and the impact on organizational commitment. Health Marketing
Quarterly, 18(3 - 4), 119 - 132.

Esterhuizen, D., Schutte, C. S., & Du Toit, A. S. A. (2012). Knowledge cre-

ation processes as critical enablers for innovation. International Journal of
Information Management, 32(4), 354 - 364.
Bibliography 54

Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1994). Linking Organizational Context and Man-
agerial Action: The Dimensions of Quality of Management. Strategic Man-
agement Journal, 15(S2), 91 - 112.

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self - efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its
determinants and malleability. Academy of Management review, 17(2), 183 -
211.

Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An

organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of management information
systems, 18(1), 185 - 214.

Gutirrez Gutirrez, L. J., Llorns - Montes, F. J., & Bustinza Snchez, O. F. (2009).
Six Sigma: From A Goal - Theoretic Perspective to Shared - Vision Develop-
ment. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 29(2),
151 - 169.

Halper, L. R., & Vancouver, J. B. (2016). Self - efficacy’s influence on persistence

on a physical task: Moderating effect of performance feedback ambiguity.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22, 170 - 177.

Hoegl, M., & Schulze, A. (2005). How to Support Knowledge Creation in New
Product Development:: An Investigation of Knowledge Management Meth-
ods. European management journal, 23(3), 263 - 273.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and organizations. International Studies of Manage-

ment & Organization, 10(4), 15 - 41.

Hunter, J. E. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge, and

job performance. Journal of vocational behavior, 29(3), 340 - 362.

Hwang, Y., Lee, Y., & Shin, D. H. (2016). The role of goal awareness and in-
formation technology self - efficacy on job satisfaction of healthcare system
users. Behaviour & Information Technology, 35(7), 548 - 558.

Iram, N., Khan, B., Ahmad, M. S., & Sahibzada, U. F. (2017). Critical Factors
Influencing the Project Success: An Analysis of Projects in Manufacturing
and Construction Industries in Punjab, Pakistan. International Journal of
Business Studies Review, 1(1).
Bibliography 55

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self - evaluations traitsself
- esteem, generalized self - efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability-
with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta - analysis. Journal of
applied Psychology, 86(1), 80

Judge, T. A., Jackson, C. L., Shaw, J. C., Scott, B. A., & Rich, B. L. (2007).
Self - efficacy and work - related performance: The integral role of individual
differences. Journal of applied psychology, 92(1), 107.

Jugdev, K., & Mller, R. (2005). A Retrospective Look at our Evolving Under-
standing of Project Success. Project Management Institute.

Kao, S. C., & Wu, C. (2016). The role of creation mode and social networking
mode in knowledge creation performance: Mediation effect of creation process.
Information & Management, 53(6), 803 - 816.

Kanfer, R. (1987). Task - specific motivation: An integrative approach to issues

of measurement, mechanisms, processes, and determinants. Journal of social
and clinical psychology, 5(2), 237 - 264.

Kaulio, M. A. (2008). Project leadership in multi - project settings: Findings

from a critical incident study. International Journal of Project Management,
26(4), 338 - 347.

Kleingeld, A., Van Mierlo, H., & Arends, L. (2011). The Effect of Goal Setting on
Group Performance: A Meta - Analysis.

Koch, C., & Bendixen, M. (2005). Multiple Perspectives on Organizing: Projects

between Tyranny and Perforation. Building Research & Information, 33(6),
536 - 546

Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities,
and the replication of technology. Organization science, 3(3), 383 - 397.

Kozlowski, S. W., Gully, S. M., Brown, K. G., Salas, E., Smith, E. M., & Nason,
E. R. (2001). Effects of training goals and goal orientation traits on multi-
dimensional training outcomes and performance adaptability. Organizational
behavior and human decision processes, 85(1), 1 - 31.
Bibliography 56

Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2007). New developments in and directions for
goal - setting research. European Psychologist, 12(4), 290 - 300.

Latham, G. P., Seijts, G., & Crim, D. (2008). The effects of learning goal difficulty
level and cognitive ability on performance. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 40(4), 220.

Lee, H., & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes, and
organizational performance: An integrative view and empirical examination.
Journal of management information systems, 20(1), 179 - 228.

Lee Endres, M., Endres, S. P., Chowdhury, S. K., & Alam, I. (2007). Tacit
knowledge sharing, self - efficacy theory, and application to the Open Source
community. Journal of knowledge management, 11(3), 92 - 103.

Lin, T. C., & Huang, C. C. (2010). Withholding effort in knowledge contribution:

The role of social exchange and social cognitive on project teams. Information
& Management, 47(3), 188 - 196.

Li, Y. H., Huang, J. W., & Tsai, M. T. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and
firm performance: The role of knowledge creation process. Industrial market-
ing management, 38(4), 440 - 449.

Linderman, K., Schroeder, R. G., & Choo, A. S. (2006). Six Sigma: The Role
of Goals in Improvement Teams. Journal of Operations Management, 24(6),
779 - 790.

Linderman, K., Schroeder, R. G., & Sanders, J. (2010). A knowledge framework

underlying process management. Decision Sciences, 41(4), 689 - 719.

Locke, E. A. (1967). Motivational effects of knowledge of results: Knowledge or

goal setting?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51(4p1), 324.

Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organi-

zational behavior and human performance, 3(2), 157 - 189.

Locke, K. D. (2009). Aggression, narcissism, self - esteem, and the attribution of

desirable and humanizing traits to self - versus others. Journal of Research
in Personality, 43(1), 99 - 102.
Bibliography 57

Locke, E. A., & Bryan, J. F. (1968). Goal - setting as a determinant of the effect
of knowledge of score on performance. The American Journal of Psychology,
81(3), 398 - 406.

Locke, E. A., Latham, G. P., & Erez, M. (1988). The determinants of goal com-
mitment. Academy of management review, 13(1), 23 - 39.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). Work Motivation and Satisfaction: Light
at the End of the Tunnel. Psychological Science, 1(4), 240 - 246.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal
setting and task motivation: A 35 - year odyssey. American psychologist,
57(9), 705.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal - setting theory.
Current directions in psychological science, 15(5), 265 - 268.

Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting
and task performance: 19691980. Psychological bulletin, 90(1), 125.

Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self - efficacy,
goals, and task strategies on task performance. Journal of applied psychology,
69(2), 241.

Madhavan, R., & Grover, R. (1998). From embedded knowledge to embodied

knowledge: new product development as knowledge management. The Jour-
nal of marketing, 1 - 12.

Mangos, P. M., & Steele - Johnson, D. (2001). The role of subjective task com-
plexity in goal orientation, self - efficacy, and performance relations. Human
performance, 14(2), 169 - 185.

Martocchio, J. J., & Frink, D. D. (1994). A review of the influence of group goals
on group performance. Academy of management journal, 37(5), 1285 - 1301.

Mento, A. J., Steel, R. P., & Karren, R. J. (1987). A meta - analytic study of
the effects of goal setting on task performance: 19661984. Organizational
behavior and human decision processes, 39(1), 52 - 83.
Bibliography 58

Miles, E. W., & Maurer, T. J. (2012). Advancing validity of self - efficacy in

negotiation through focusing at the domain level. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 85(1), 23 - 41.

Mirchandani, D. A., & Lederer, A. L. (2012). ”Less is more:” information systems

planning in an uncertain environment. Information Systems Management,
29(1), 13 - 25.

Mitchell, V. L. (2006). Knowledge integration and information technology project

performance. Mis Quarterly, 919 - 939.

Monzani, D., Steca, P., Greco, A., D’Addario, M., Pancani, L., & Cappelletti, E.
(2015). Effective pursuit of personal goals: The fostering effect of dispositional
optimism on goal commitment and goal progress. Personality and Individual
Differences, 82, 203 - 214.

Mukherjee, A. S., Lapr, M. A., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (1998). Knowledge

driven quality improvement. Management Science, 44(11 - part - 2), S35 -
S49.

Munns, A. K., & Bjeirmi, B. F. (1996). The role of project management in

achieving project success. International journal of project management, 14(2),
81 - 87.

Nidumolu, S. (1995). The Effect of Coordination and Uncertainty on Software

Project Performance: Residual Performance Risk as an Intervening Variable.
Information Systems Research, 6(3), 191 - 219.

Nonaka, I. (2000). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. In

Knowledge, groupware and the internet (pp. 3 - 42).

Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of ”Ba”: Building a foundation for
knowledge creation. California management review, 40(3), 40 - 54.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creation company: how
Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation.

Nonaka, L., Takeuchi, H., & Umemoto, K. (1996). A theory of organizational

knowledge creation. International Journal of Technology Management, 11(7
- 8), 833 - 845.
Bibliography 59

Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Nagata, A. (2000). A firm as a knowledge - creating
entity: a new perspective on the theory of the firm. Industrial and corporate
change, 9(1), 1 - 20.

O’Dell, C., & Jackson Grayson Jr, C. (1999). Knowledge transfer: discover your
value proposition. Strategy & Leadership, 27(2), 10 - 15.

O’Leary - Kelly, A. M., Martocchio, J. J., & Frink, D. D. (1994). A review of

the influence of group goals on group performance. Academy of management
journal, 37(5), 1285 - 1301.

Ordonez, L. D., Schweitzer, M. E., Galinsky, A. D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009).

Goals gone wild: The systematic side effects of overprescribing goal setting.
The Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(1), 6 - 16.

Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphorAn

emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science & education, 14(6),
535 - 557.

Page West III, G., & Dale Meyer, G. (1997). Communicated knowledge as a
learning foundation. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis,
5(1), 25 - 58.

Pan, Y. H. (2014). Relationships among teachers’ self - efficacy and students’

motivation, atmosphere, and satisfaction in physical education. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 33(1), 68 - 92.

Pan, W., Sun, L. Y., & Chow, I. H. S. (2011). The impact of supervisory mentoring
on personal learning and career outcomes: The dual moderating effect of self
- efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78(2), 264 - 273.

Pillai, R., & Williams, E. A. (2004). Transformational leadership, self - efficacy,

group cohesiveness, commitment, and performance. Journal of organizational
change management, 17(2), 144 - 159.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimat-
ing indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior research methods,
instruments, & computers, 36(4), 717 - 731.
Bibliography 60

Preenen, P., van Vianen, A., & de Pater, I. (2014). Challenging tasks: The role
of employees’ and supervisors’ goal orientations. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 23(1), 48 - 61.

Saunders, M. N., & Lewis, P. (2012). Doing Research in Business & Management:
An Essential Guide to Planning Your Project. Pearson.

Schaubroeck, J., & Merritt, D. E. (1997). Divergent effects of job control on coping
with work stressors: The key role of self - efficacy. Academy of Management
Journal, 40(3), 738 - 754.

Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self - efficacy, motivation, and performance. Journal of

applied sport psychology, 7(2), 112 - 137.

Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self - efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling,
goal setting, and self - evaluation. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 159 -
172.

Schon, D. A. (1975). Deutero - learning in organizations: Learning for. Organiza-

tional dynamics, 4(1), 2 - 16.

Schmidt, A. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2010). The moderating effects of performance

ambiguity on the relationship between self - efficacy and performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 572.

Scott, R. W. (1987). 1987 Organizations: rational, natural, and open systems.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice - Hall.

Seibert, S. E., Sargent, L. D., Kraimer, M. L., & Kiazad, K. (2017). Linking
Developmental Experiences to Leader Effectiveness and Promotability: The
Mediating Role of Leadership Self - Efficacy and Mentor Network. Personnel
Psychology, 70(2), 357 - 397.

Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2005). Learning versus performance goals: When
should each be used?. Academy of Management Perspectives, 19(1), 124 -
131.

Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2011). The effect of commitment to a learning

goal, self - efficacy, and the interaction between learning goal difficulty and
Bibliography 61

commitment on performance in a business simulation. Human Performance,

24(3), 189 - 204.

Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice - Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., &
Rogers, R. W. (1982). The self - efficacy scale: Construction and validation.
Psychological reports, 51(2), 663 - 671.

Silver, W. S., Mitchell, T. R., & Gist, M. E. (1995). Responses to successful

and unsuccessful performance: The moderating effect of self - efficacy on the
relationship between performance and attributions. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 62(3), 286 - 299.

Sitkin, S. B., See, K. E., Miller, C. C., Lawless, M. W., & Carton, A. M. (2011).
The paradox of stretch goals: Organizations in pursuit of the seemingly im-
possible. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 544 - 566.

Smith, R. E. (1989). Effects of coping skills training on generalized self - efficacy

and locus of control. Journal of personality and social psychology, 56(2), 228.

Smith, K. G., Locke, E. A., & Barry, D. (1990). Goal setting, planning, and organi-
zational performance: An experimental simulation. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 46(1), 118 - 134.

Speier, C., & Frese, M. (1997). Generalized self - efficacy as a mediator and
moderator between control and complexity at work and personal initiative:
A longitudinal field study in East Germany. Human performance, 10(2), 171
- 192.

Stevens, C. K., & Gist, M. E. (1997). Effects of self - efficacy and goal - ori-
entation training on negotiation skill maintenance: What are the mecha-
nisms?Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 955 - 978.

Taylor, M. S., Locke, E. A., Lee, C., & Gist, M. E. (1984). Type A behavior and
faculty research productivity: What are the mechanisms? Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 34(3), 402 - 418.

Thundiyil, T. G., Chiaburu, D. S., Li, N., & Wagner, D. T. (2016). Joint effects
of creative self - efficacy, positive and negative affect on creative performance.
Chinese Management Studies, 10(4), 726 - 745.
Bibliography 62

Tubbs, M. E. (1986). Goal setting: A meta - analytic examination of the empirical

evidence. Journal of applied psychology, 71(3), 474.

Turner, J. R., & Mller, R. (2003). On the nature of the project as a temporary
organization. International journal of project management, 21(1), 1 - 8.

Turner, R., & Zolin, R. (2012). Forecasting success on large projects: developing
reliable scales to predict multiple perspectives by multiple stakeholders over
multiple time frames. Project Management Journal, 43(5), 87 - 99.

Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., & Williams, A. A. (2001). The changing signs
in the relationships among self - efficacy, personal goals, and performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 605.

van Aalst, J. (2009). Distinguishing knowledge - sharing, knowledge - construction,

and knowledge - creation discourses. International Journal of Computer -
Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 259 - 287.

Von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I., & Rechsteiner, L. (2012). Leadership in organiza-
tional knowledge creation: A review and framework. Journal of Management
Studies, 49(1), 240 - 277.

Voskuil, V. R., & Robbins, L. B. (2015). Youth physical activity self - efficacy: a
concept analysis. Journal of advanced nursing, 71(9), 2002 - 2019.

Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for
future research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115 - 131.

Weldon, E., & Weingart, L. R. (1993). Group Goals and Group Performance.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 32(4), 307 - 334.

West, R. L., Ebner, N. C., & Hastings, E. C. (2013). Linking goals and aging:
Experimental and life - span approaches. New developments in goal setting
and task performance, 439 - 459.

Wilson, K., & Narayan, A. (2016). Relationships among individual task self -
efficacy, self - regulated learning strategy use and academic performance in a
computer - supported collaborative learning environment. Educational Psy-
chology, 36(2), 236 - 253.
Bibliography 63

Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational man-
agement. Academy of management Review, 14(3), 361 - 384.

Yli - Renko, H., Autio, E., & Sapienza, H. J. (2001). Social capital, knowledge
acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology - based firms.
Strategic management journal, 22(6 - 7), 587 - 613.

Zhang, W., Li, K., Zhang, X., & Chen, L. (2016). Coping self - efficacy of Chinese
nursing undergraduates with their research projects. Nurse education today,
45, 126 - 131.

Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez - Pons, M. (1992). Self - motivation
for academic attainment: The role of self - efficacy beliefs and personal goal
setting. American educational research journal, 29(3), 663 - 676.
Appendix-A

Questionnaire

Dear respondent,

I invite you to participate in a research study entitled “The Impact of Chal-

lenging goals on Projects Performance with Mediating Role of Knowl-
edge Creation and Moderating Role of Self-Efficacy ”. I am student of MS
Project Management from Capital University of Science & Technology, Islamabad.
Please do not mention your name and there are no known risks to participation.
Your responses will remain confidential and anonymous and will only be used for
academic purposes.

Thank you for your assistance in this important endeavor.

Sincerely,

RIDA AMJAD

MS (Project Management) Research Student

Faculty of Management and Social Sciences
Capital University Science and Technology, Islamabad

64
Annexure 65

Section: I

Section II: Challenging Goals

Strongly Disagree(SD)=1Disagree(D)=2, Neutral(N)=3, Agree(A)=4, Strongly

Agree(SA)=5

Questions SD D N A SA
1 We found it very difficult to achieve the 1 2 3 4 5
project goals.
2 It was relatively easy to achieve the 1 2 3 4 5
project goals.
3 The project goals were challenging to us. 1 2 3 4 5
Annexure 66

Section III: Knowledge Creation

Strongly Disagree (SD) =1, Disagree (D) =2, Neutral (N) =3, Agree (A)=4,
Strongly Agree(SA)=5

Questions SD D N A SA
4 The Team generated many ideas while 1 2 3 4 5
doing the projects.
5 Doing this project enhanced the team’s 1 2 3 4 5
ability and knowledge of the project
team
6 The solutions found in this project were 1 2 3 4 5
clearly unique and innovative to the
company

Section IV: Project Performance

Strongly Disagree (SD) =1, Disagree (D) =2, Neutral(N) =3, Agree (A) =4,
Strongly Agree (SA)=5

Questions SD D N A SA
7 Projects are completed on time. 1 2 3 4 5
8 Projects met budget requirements. 1 2 3 4 5
9 Projects met expectations. 1 2 3 4 5
10 Project team members are satisfied to 1 2 3 4 5
work together.
11 Benefits of projects to the organization 1 2 3 4 5
are high.
12 Projects resulted in sales growth. 1 2 3 4 5
13 Projects helped the organization to in- 1 2 3 4 5
crease market share.
14 Projects helped the organization im- 1 2 3 4 5
prove its competitive position.
Annexure 67

Section V: Self-Efficacy

Strongly Disagree(SD)=1, Disagree(D)=2, Neutral(N)=3, Agree(A)=4, Strongly

Agree(SA)=5

Questions SD D N A SA
15 When I make plan, I am certain I can 1 2 3 4 5
make them work .
16 If I can’t do a job for the first time, I 1 2 3 4 5
keep trying until I can .
17 I give up on things before completing 1 2 3 4 5
them.
18 I avoid facing difficulties. 1 2 3 4 5
19 When I have something unpleasant to 1 2 3 4 5
do, I stick to it until I finish it.
20 When I decide to do something , I go 1 2 3 4 5
right to work on it.
21 When trying to learn something new, I 1 2 3 4 5
soon give up if I am not initially success-
ful.
22 Failure just makes me try harder . 1 2 3 4 5
23 I am a self-reliant person. 1 2 3 4 5
24 I give up easily. 1 2 3 4 5