‘3 11‘ ‘1 321. gig? I! THCf-HS Z 2007 LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled EMERGENCE PROCESS OF TEAM GOAL ORIENTATION AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS presented by GUIHYUN PARK has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the degree In Psychology //QXL/ Major Professor’s Signature 1 1/29/2006 Date MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution -.--.-o-a-.-u---o-n-t----n-v-u--—n-.-.-.—._.---.--n---n-o--a-.-u-.-.—-— PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DAIEDUE DAIEDUE DAIEDUE MAR 2 5 2013 +6-i—3—1-3 6/07 p./ClRC/DaIeDue.indd-p.1 EMERGENCE PROCESS OF TEAM GOAL ORIENTATION AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS ' By Guihyun Park A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 2006 ABSTRACT EMERGENCE PROCESS OF TEAM GOAL ORIENTATION AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS. By Guihyun Park Although the team goal orientation literature has recognized the usefulness of team goal orientation in predicting team-level outcomes such as team performance and satisfaction, no study has investigated the emergence process of team goal orientation and its impact on team-level outcomes. This study posited that team goal orientation emerges through interactions among team members, in which members influence each other’s goal orientation. Undergraduate students participated in a simulated airport security screening task as members of a three-person team where teams needed to identify potential weapons. This study had high versus low role discrepancy conditions. In the high role discrepancy condition, a team consisted of one leader and two informers, and only the leader was able to make final decisions; whereas, in the low role discrepancy condition, a team had no assigned leader. The results generally supported the hypotheses such that team goal orientation emerged based on the leaders’ goal orientation. Cepyfight by GUIHYUN PARK 2006 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Rick DeShon. He was a constant source of guidance for this project. I am grateful for his confidence in my abilities, his willingness to allow me the freedom and time to explore and develop my ideas, and his helpfiil advice. I would also like to thank my committee members, Steve Kozlowski and Dan Ilgen for their helpful feedback and comments. Thank you to my family for your support. I appreciate all the words of encouragement along the way. I’d particularly like to thank SeungHo, who has put up with my occasional mid-night cries and all-day shopping at QVC. His faith in me finally earning my own salary is becoming true. I also want to thank you for Mango, Kingkong, and Nabi for their supports during 1am to 5am by keep meowing for foods and rolling over on the piles of papers. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. vii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................ ix INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1 Team Motivation ............................................................................... 4 Team Goal Orientation ....................................................................... 6 Dynamics of Team Goal Orientation Emergence ......................................... lO Representation of Dynamics of Team Goal Orientation .................................. 12 Emergence Processes ofTeam Goal Orientation 15 Role importance 15 Hypothesis 117 Homogeneity in individual trait goal orientation ............................. 18 Hypothesis 2 .................................................................. l9 Emergence processes of team goal orientation and team effectiveness ..... l9 Hypothesis 3 .................................................................. 21 Effect of tolerance for ambiguity on emergence process ........................... 21 Hypothesis 4 .................................................................. 22 Team goal orientation and team outcomes ...................................... 23 Hypothesis 5 .................................................................. 24 Degree of agreement on team goal orientation ................................ 25 Hypothesis 6 .................................................................. 26 Model Summary ............................................................................... 26 METHOD ........................................................................................... 33 Task Overview ................................................................................ 33 Participants and Design ...................................................................... 33 Procedure ....................................................................................... 34 Experimental Manipulations ................................................................. 36 Role discrepancy ........................................................................ 36 Achievement motivation ............................................................. 36 Manipulation Check ..................................................................... 36 Measure ......................................................................................... 37 Cognitive ability ......................................................................... 37 Trait individual goal orientation ...................................................... 37 Heterogeneity in trait goal orientation .............................................. 37 State individual goal orientation ...................................................... 37 State team goal orientation ............................................................ 38 Team perceived differences in goal orientation ..................................... 38 Agreement on team goal orientation ................................................. 39 Tolerance for ambiguity ............................................................... 39 Team tolerance for ambiguity ......................................................... 39 Leadership emergence ................................................................. 39 Team satisfaction ....................................................................... 39 Team performance ....................................................................... 40 RESULTS ........................................................................................... 40 Preliminary Analyses and Manipulation Check ............................................ 40 Scale Evaluation ............................................................................... 66 Analysis Overview ............................................................................. 72 Hypothesis Testing ............................................................................ 73 Hypothesis 1 .............................................................................. 73 Hypothesis 2 .............................................................................. 78 Hypothesis 3 .............................................................................. 81 Hypothesis 4 .............................................................................. 90 Hypothesis 5 .............................................................................. 92 Hypothesis 6 .............................................................................. 93 Exploratory Analysis ......................................................................... 94 DISCUSSION ................................................................................... 103 Emergence Process and Outcomes of Team Goal Orientation ......................... 104 Heterogeneity of Goal Orientation ........................................................ 106 Limitation ...................................................................................... 108 Implication and Future Directions ........................................................... 110 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 114 Appendix A: Examples of X-ray Slides .. . . . . . . .................................................... 115 Appendix B: Manipulation of Achievement Motivation ........................................ 118 Appendix C: Individual Decision Making Sheet .................................................... 119 Appendix D: First Look at the Luggage Task. . ................................................... 120 Appendix E: Individual Goal Orientation ............................................................... 121 Appendix F: Team Goal Orientation .. .............................................................. 122 Appendix G: Tolerance for Ambiguity 123 Appendix H: General Leadership Impression. ...................................................... 124 Appendix 1: Team Sat1sfact10n125 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 126 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Hypothesized Relationships Between IV and DV and Levels and Composition... 30 Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliabilities of Individual-level Variables 42 Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations of Team-level Variables 56 Table 4. Interaction Effects of Leader’s Team Performance Goal Orientation and Condition on Members’ Team Performance Goal Orientation ..................................... 75 Table 5. Interaction Effects of Leader’s Team Mastery Goal Orientation and Condition on Members’ Team Performance Goal Orientation 77 Table 6. Interaction Effects of Leader’s Team Avoid Goal Orientation and Condition on Members’ Team Performance Goal Onentatlon 78 Table 7. Effects of Time and Within-team Standard Deviation in Members’ Trait Goal Orientation on Their Perceived Team Goal Orientation. . 80 Table 8. Perceived Heterogeneity Between Individual and Team Goal Orientation as Predictors ofSatrsfactron 82 Table 9. Perceived Heterogeneity Between Individual and Team Goal Orientation as Predictors ofPerformance 84 Table 10. Effects of Team-level Goal Orientation on Members’ Satisfaction ................. 92 Table l 1. Effects of Team Goal Orientation on Team Performance ......................... 93 vii Table 12. Effects of Team-level Goal Orientation and Agreements on Team-level Satisfaction ........................................................................................... 94 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Model of Team Goal Orientation Emergence Process .............................. 29 Figure 2. Within-team Standard Deviation of Team Performance Goal Orientation Over Time 68 Figure 3. Within-team Standard Deviation of Team Learning Goal Orientation Over Time” 68 Figure 4. Within-team Standard Deviation of Team Avoid Goal Orientation Over Time 69 Figure 5. Average Leadership Ratings on Person B ....................................................... 70 Figure 6. Person B’s Achievement Motives by Condition ............................................... 72 Figure 7. Interaction Effect of Time and Trait Avoid Goal Orientation Heterogeneity on Individuals’ Perception on Team Avoid Goal Orientation. ............................................ 81 Figure 8a. Three-way Interaction Between Members’ Individual Performance Goal Orientation and Perceived Team Performance Goal Orientation on Team Performance Over Time (Wavel).... 86 Figure 8b. Three-way Interaction Between Members’ Individual Performance Goal Orientation and Perceived Team Performance Goal Orientation on Team Performance Over Time (WaveS).... 86 Figure 9a. Three-way Interaction Between Members’ Individual Learning Goal Orientation and Perceived Team Learning Goal Orientation on Team Performance Over Time (Wavel) 88 ix Figure 9b. Three-way Interaction Between Members’ Individual Learning Goal Orientation and Perceived Team Learning Goal Orientation on Team Performance Over Time (WaveS) 88 Figure 10a. Three-way Interaction Between Members’ Individual Avoid Goal Orientation and Perceived Team Avoid Goal Orientation on Team Performance Over Time (Wavel) 89 Figure 10b. Three-way Interaction Between Members’ Individual Avoid Goal Orientation and Perceived Team Avoid Goal Orientation on Team Performance Over Time (WaveS) 90 Figure 11a. Regression Line of Standard Deviations in Team Mastery Goal Orientation for Each Team (Teams Without Leader) . 96 Figure 11b. Regression Line of Standard Deviations in Team Mastery Goal Orientation for Each Team (Teams With a Leader) . . 99 INTRODUCTION Economic and technological trends are rapidly changing the structure of work in modern organizations (Devine, Clayton, Philps, Dunford, & Melner, 1999; Risher, & Fay, 1995). Dividing labor into several specialized tasks to increase the efficiency between input and output has lost its attractiveness as employees often need to pool their resources together to adapt to the ever-changing business environment. For instance, Total Quality Management (TQM) in which team members are trained together and learn how to adapt to each other’s role has proven to be more beneficial than previously used individualized work systems because the TQM ensures high quality outcomes through teamwork processes (Ilgen, Major, and Hollenbeck, 1993). To survive in the business environment, therefore, organizations ought to pay careful attention to the team processes and be actively involved in managing their teams effectively. It is not too much to say that organizations’ ability to manage their teams determines how much they utilize their human capital, and their successes in today’s business environment. The number of studies on teamwork has increased since the 1990’s and this reflects the surge of attention on team management (Levine, & Moreland, 1990; Sanna & Parks, 1997). One of the main issues in the team studies is how to affect the motivation of teams so that teams attain greater effectiveness. Although many studies have approached this issue of team motivation from various perspectives, they all agree upon the basic assumption that individual members are embedded in teams (e.g., Kozlowski, Gully, Nason, & Smith, 1999; Lepine, 2002; Mathieu, Marks, & Zaccaro, 2002). In other words, to explain team motivation properly, you need to recognize the multi-level nature of team motivation that team-level motivation originates from individual team members (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). To examine a team’s motivational process, therefore, we need to understand the process of an individual’s motivation and investigate how the interaction processes among members lead to the emergence of a team-level motivation. In this study, a team is defined as a collection of individuals who interact dynamically, interdependently, and adaptively toward a common goal, each having a specific set of functions to perform (Salas, Dickinson, Converse, & Tannebaum, 1992). Working in teams is quite different from working individually. First, individuals in teams have an additional layer of environment that is other members in the team. Lewin (1935) suggested that individuals’ behaviors are directed by interaction between their personal characteristics and the environment around them. Furthermore, he argued that other members in a group become proximal environment to provide the context for individual’s thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and actions influence group members such that the person is always, to some degree, thinking and acting as a member of a grOup (Lewin, 1943). Second, team members cooperate with other individuals in the team and work together to accomplish a common goal. Therefore, team members’ efforts are entangled and must be coordinated to perform effectively as a team (Cannon-Bowers, Salas, Converse, 1993). The coordination process of a team is facilitated by having ‘a shared situation’ models on understanding of the external environmental factors, goals, strategies, and members (Orasanu, & Salas, 1993). This mutual mental model allows members to predict the behavior and needs of other members, which in turn, makes teams perform effectively (e.g., Bowers, Morgan, Salas, & Prince, 1993; Adehnarr, Zirk, Lehner, Moffett, & Hall, 1986) Although team motivation is developed by interactions among individual members, most studies on team motivation have neglected the emergent process of team motivation. Most researchers assumed that collective motivation is mostly shaped by top- down processes. For example, they argued that external environments around individuals like organizational goals and policies influence individuals’ cognition and behaviors, which in turn, lead them to share a Similar perception on higher-level characteristics (e. g., Schneider & Reichers, 1983; Pensgaard & Roberts, 2003; Treasure, 1997). Team motivation is, however, more or less likely to emerge through dynamic interactions among team members (Kozlowski, Gully, Nason, & Smith, 1999). When individuals’ cognition, affects, behaviors, or other characteristics are amplified by their interactions and manifests as a higher-level, it is defined as an emergent of a collective phenomenon (Katz & Kahn, 1966). As team members interact with each other and perform as a team, they gradually become to share their perceptions of the team and its external environment over time (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Kozlowski, Gully, Nason, Smith, 1999). Because we have little understanding on the dynamic emergent process of team motivation, it has been difficult to make a prediction as to how team motivation affects team level outcomes such as team satisfaction and performance. For example, although we know a team’s motivation level impacts the team’s performance and satisfaction, we do not know how the team motivation emerges from the individual level and how the emergence process influences team effectiveness. To understand team motivation, it is important to look at the emergent process of team motivation through interactions among team members and investigate relationships between team motivation emergence and team effectiveness. In the next section, I will review previous literature on team motivation and discuss its implication on this study. Team Motivation There are many studies that discuss how being a team member constitutes a unique situation for individuals working in teams, which in turn, yields motivational processes that are unique to the individuals who are working in teams. It has been suggested that being a member in a team can either facilitate or debilitate one’s motivation to perform well (e.g., Williams, Karau, Bourgeois, & Martin, 1993; Zajonc, 1965). Studies on social loafing identified a number of psychological mechanisms underlying such effects. Specifically, it was suggested that individuals in teams are more likely to withdraw their efforts when there is low risk of evaluation, or when they have a low level of interests in the team task (Levine & Moreland, 1990; Miles & Greenberg, 1993; Kerr & Stanfel, 1993). Also, when team members feel their individual contributions are difficult to identify, they exert little effort on behalf of a team (Erez & Somech, 1996). Studies on group motivation gain, however, have illustrated that team members may exert greater effort than individual performers (e.g., Williams & Karau, 1991; Hart, Bridgett, & Karau, 2001; Hertel, Kerr, & Messe, 2000). For example, individuals often increase their efforts on collective tasks when they anticipate poor performance of other group members (Karau & Williams, 1997) or when their contribution is critical for team’s success (Kohler 1926; Hertel, Kerr, & Messe, 2000; Messe, Hertel, Kerr, Lount, & Park, 2002). The social facilitation theory also suggested that working with other individuals can be a positive stimulus for performance especially when the task is easy (Zajonc, 1965). These studies suggest that individuals in a team do not naturally come to behave on behalf of their teams’ collective outcomes and instead maintain a distinction between their own individual goals and their perception of the team’s goal. Depending on their perceived relationship between their individuals’ goals and team goals individuals in a team can either facilitate or debilitate overall team outcomes. Specifically, individuals would be motivated when achieving team goals can also facilitate attainment of their individual goals. In addition, because there is more than one individual in a team, each member has his/her own needs and motivation levels and coordinating these different individual goals in a way that is consistent with overall team goal is important for the success of the team (Zander, 1979). Therefore, it is impossible to separate team motivation fi'om individual motivation and to study team motivation we need to consider individual motivation and the coordination process of different individual motivation in teams. Although it is important to investigate the process of team motivation emergence by the coordination of individual level goals, most studies have neglected the process that links individual level and team level motivation. Instead, previous research has assumed that team motivation is a separate entity than individual motivation and had applied individual level motivation theories to team motivation. -As a result, most of the team motivation studies have focused on the applications of the goal setting theory to teams. For example, it is widely known that a team goal has positive effect on team performance (Locke & Latham, 1990). Also, the level of the team goal is related to performance of teams such that teams with higher and more specific team goals perform better (e. g., Weingart & Weldon, 1991; Buller & Bell, 1986; Lawrence & Smith, 1955). It has been suggested that as a team’s goal level increases, team members’ quantity and quality of planning increase and the amount of efforts each member putting into the task increases as well (e.g., Becker, 1978; Weldon, & Weingart, 1993; Weingart, & Weldon 1991). The increase in coordination efforts among team members leads to improved team performance (W eingart, 1992). Also it has been noted that members’ commitments to team goals are related to the team’s performance, so that team performance is enhanced when members increase commitment toward their team goal. (e. g., Mulvey,& Klein, 1998; Ronan, Latham, Kinne, 1973; Zander, 1979). Team Goal Orientation A popular approach to team motivation, that is the focus on this paper, is team goal orientation. Dweck and Leggett (1988) suggested that the goals that individuals have creates frameworks within which they interpret and react to events in an achievement setting. They identified two classes of goals: performance goals in which individuals are concerned with performing well in terms of gaining interpersonal superiority, and learning goals in which individuals are concerned with performing well in terms of self- developmental perspective (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). Although, most of previous literature on goal orientation mainly talked about two dimensions of goal orientations - mastery and performance orientations, lately, goal theorists proposed performance-avoid goal orientation (Elliott & Church, 1997; VandeWalle, 1997; Elliot & Sheldon, 1997). Base on their argument, performance goal orientation can have approach or avoidance dimensions in which individuals are more concerned with either positive (approach) or negative (avoidance) valence of their goal. Individuals with a high performance- approach orientation want to demonstrate their ability to others. Individuals with a high performance-avoidance orientation want to avoid demonstrating their incompetence to others (Elliott, Sheldon, & Church, 1997). Goal orientation is treated both as a personal disposition and a contextual condition in which, an individual’s goal orientation is based on interactions between individual differences and contextual cues such as evaluation standards or feedback from other individuals (e.g., Ames & Archer, 1988; Ames, 1992; Pensgaard & Roberts, 2003; Treasure, 1997) A team goal orientation is defined as a shared understanding of the extent to which a team emphasizes learning or performance goals (Bunderson & Sutcliffee, 2003). A handful of studies have attempted to generalize individual-level goal orientation theory to team level processes. For example, teams with a high learning goal orientation tended to pursue a greater number of new ideas related to a wider range of team activities (Ames & Archer, 1988; Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003; Turner, Midgley, Meyer, Gheen, Anderson, Kang, & Patrick, 20.02). Also, a team’s learning goal orientation was associated with the team’s adaptive performance (Bunderson & Sutcliffee, 2003). Team performance and learning goal orientation were found to positively related to team efficacy, which in turn, positively related to team performance (DeShon et al, 2004). Previous studies in team goal orientation paid little attention to multilevel aspects of the dynamic emergent process of team goal orientation. For instance, although the multilevel theory argues that emergence processes of team-level construct are more likely to occur during early phases in team’s life cycle (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000), researchers often measured team goal orientation one time in their study which made it difficult to examine the processes of team goal orientation over time (e,g., Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003; DeShon et al, 2004; Porter, 2005). For example, although they acknowledged the importance of studying the dynamic emergent processes of team goal orientation, DeShon et a1 (2004) measured team goal orientation one time at the end of their team experiment and used the measure as a proxy value for trait team goal orientation. To adequately examine the processes of team goal orientation emergence, however, it is necessary to measure team goal orientation multiple times as a new team develops over time. In addition, there is often lack of consistency between the theoretical argument and the operationalization of team goal orientation in studies. For example, Porter (2005) used an additive composition model for team goal orientation and he argued that adding individual . goal orientations can adequately represent the team-level goal orientation. An additive composition model, however, is only appropriate when there was a minimal amount of interaction among team members (Chen, 1998). In the study, in fact, team members were working on a highly interdependent task and team members were involved in backing up behaviors for other members (Porter, 2005). Therefore, this lack of consistency between the nature of team members’ interactions and the representation of team-level goal orientation may lead to a misspecified model of team-level goal orientation (Kozlowki & Klein, 2000). Although many studies on avoid goal orientation have been conducted at individual-level, no study has looked at the team level of avoid goal orientation. At the individual-level of studies, individuals with a high level of avoid goal orientation feel stronger anxieties and negative emotions in achievement settings and they experience decreases in performance (e.g., Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Sheldon, 1997; Elliot, Sheldon, & Church, 1997). Although teams that want to avoid being incompetent do exist, no studies on team goal orientation have looked at the team avoid goal orientation. This lack of attention on team avoid goal orientation is disturbing because team avoid goal orientation can potentially explain many motivational problems that teams have, such as social loafing (Williams, Karau, & Bourgeois, 1993), or a loss in productivity in teams (Sheppard, 1993). Finally, although it is important to consider the bottom-up, emergence processes of team members sharing similar understandings on the team’s goal orientation by influencing each other’s goal orientation, previous research on team goal orientation neglected the implication of the emergent process of team goal orientation. Most studies assumed team members share the team goal orientation mainly because they are placed in the similar environment (top-down processes). For example, it has been suggested that teams in an environment that values innovative ideas and behaviors have a high level of team learning goal orientation because each member perceives developing new ideas and strategies as being positively related to performance (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003). Previous studies on team goal orientation did not pay enough attention to the emergent process of team goal orientation through interaction and coordination among individuals with different goal orientations. Instead, they tend to assume that the sum of the environmental impact on individuals’ goal orientations was equal to team level goal orientation. The approach to team goal orientation may not be appropriate for higher level constructs that are dynamic because it does not account for differences that arise in team level goal orientation across teams within the same environment. In a similar vein, Schneider and Reichers (1983) argued that because members who compose a team are different from one another, and their patterns of interactions are different, different teams in the same organization generate different team goal orientation. For example, we often observe different teams have different goal orientations in classes, even though they are all exposed to the same teacher, the same evaluation standards, and the same tasks. Some teams focus on their grades, whereas some teams focus on how to learn more fiom the experience. This difference in team goal orientation, therefore, cannot be explained unless we examine the dynamic process of team goal orientation that takes place within each team over time. Dyn_amics of Team Goal Orientation Emergence The present study suggests that team goal orientation emerges from two processes; a conscious sense making process and a non-conscious goal contagion process. People in organizations encounter numerous events and people need to perceive these events in coherent sets to react to them properly (e.g., Louis, 1980; Morrison, 1993; Chao, O’Leary—Kelly, Wolf, Klein, & Gardner, 1994). People need an appropriate flame of reference to properly interpret and react to their environmental cures such that they can direct their behaviors and successfully adapt to their environment (e.g., Berger & Luckrnann, 1967; Blumer, 1969). Individuals’ adaptation to their environment is often described as a process in which employees establish their goals that are consistent with the environments (e. g., Chao, O’Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, & Gardner, 1994; Ostroff, & Kozlowski, 1992). While employees try to adapt to their work environment, they actively communicate with each other, respond to, define, and interpret elements of the situation (Schneider, 1981; Ashford & Cummings, 1983). In teams, the closest sources of information are teammates and team members influence each other’s interpretation of events and behaviors. Since coordinating with other members is important for the teams’ successes, members are particularly sensitive about other’s goals and their behavioral 10 cues that imply their goals. Individuals intentionally seek and share their goals with other team members to adapt their environment, which leads them to have shared mental models (Kozlowski et al, 1996). Therefore, each member become mutual determiners to each other’s changes in goals and through this process team goal orientation emerges. In addition, team goal orientation is shared among member unconsciously. Although others do not directly communicate their goals, people perceive other’s behavior as goal directed and readily understand the goals that are served by these behaviors (McClure, 2002). People infer other goals automatically without conscious intent and awareness, and the inferred goal causes individuals to automatically pursue goals and exhibit automatic goal contagion (e.g., Aarts, Gollwitzer, & Hassin 2004; Hassin, Aarts, & Ferguson, 2005). For example, participants who were exposed to behaviors that implied the goal of making money were more motivated to engage in a subsequent goal-relevant activity in which they can earn money (Aarts, Gollwizer, & Hassin, 2004). Further evidence to support the goal contagion argument could be found in emotional contagion studies. Emotional contagion takes place when team members mimic and synchronize other members’ emotional expression without conscious awareness, which in turn, serves to promote an emotional experience consistent with the emotions expressed (George, 2006). It was found that team leaders’ affective states are contagious to the team members and the leader’s positive mood influenced the team’s affective tone by influencing team members’ affects (Sy, Cote, & Saavedra, 2005). Also, it was suggested that the positive affect of a member is transferable to other members in the team, which in turn, lead to improved cooperation among team members (Barsade, ll 2002). Therefore, seen from the perspectives of the goal contagion, the mere perception of how other members behave can trigger individuals to infer the goals and behave in terms of the inferred goal unconsciously. Individuals in teams influence each other’s motivation by actively perceiving others’ goals or unconsciously inferring and following the other’s goals. Team members influence each other’s goal unconsciously through interactions and unconscious attributions and the team’s goal orientation emerges as the team members come to share the same goal. At first, individuals might have different perceptions of the environment and they do not have a common team level of shared motivational climate. However, as team members cooperate with other individuals in teams and work together to accomplish a common goal, their efforts often need to be entangled and coordinated in order to perform effectively (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Because of these characteristics of working in a team that are different from working individually, team members who were independent in the beginning gradually affect each other’s motivation over time through both a conscious sense making process and unconscious goal contagion process. Members develop a shared perception of the team and its external environment as they work together and team goal orientation emerges. Representation of Dyaamics of Team Goal Orientation Because previous studies on team goal orientation have not examined the process of team goal orientation emergence, previous measures of team goal orientation is not suitable to represent the dynamic development of team goal orientation. For example, team goal orientation has often been considered as a composite of individual members’ goals, or an end state desired by a majority of those in the team. (e.g., Kristof-Brown, & 12 Stevens, 2002; Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003). In addition, team goal orientation was assumed to be stable over time and often measured at one time (e.g., DeShon et al, 2004, Kristof-Brown, & Stevens, 2002; Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003). Most studies used a combination of the direct consensus model and the reference shift model such that within- group agreement on team level goal orientation is checked before the average of individual perceptions on team goal orientation is calculated (e,g., DeShon et al, 2004; Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003). This study proposes, however, team goal orientation is a dynamic process such that members who have different goal orientation in the beginning would gradually share the similar goal orientation as they working in a team. Given the dynamic model of team goal orientation presented above, it is likely that the ways in which team goal orientation was studied in the previous studies does not appropriately capture the process of team goal orientation emergence. In addition, Chan (1998) suggested that the direct consensus model , or reference shift model could only be used for those constructs that are simple and relatively stable such as organizational climate. However, for those constructs that are highly dynamic such as team motivation, he argued that it is not appropriate to use a simple algorithm to compose the lower level process to the higher level. Instead, Chan suggested a process model of composition for those constructs that are changing and in process of changing because the process model is concerned with the emergent process of the higher-level construct. In the process model, individual-level processes are examined to investigate how each individual develops an individual level construct and to specify the process of the higher-level emergence. This study specifies team goal orientation emergence as an 13 integration process, moving fiom an initial state in which there is little agreement among individuals’ goal orientation, through progress stages in which the level of agreement gradually increases, to the eventual stage in which a certain level of agreement among individuals’ goal orientation is maintained. This integration process is composed to be the higher level to specify the process of team goal orientation emergence. This indicates that team members influence each other’s goal orientation as they work together and as team goal orientation emerges. Accordingly, this study measured individual level goal orientation in multiple occasions throughout team’s developmental processes. In previous studies, to represent team goal orientation, studies examined within- team variance of individual goal orientation first. Once the within-team variance met the statistical criteria, team goal orientation was represented as the aggregation of individual level goal orientation or the aggregation (e.g., Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003; DeShon et al, 2004). Therefore, within-team variance was only used as a dichotomous criterion for the aggregation of individual goal orientation. In this study, however, I am interested in how team goal orientation develops over time, and changes in within-team variance is considered as a key variable that indicates the emergence of team goal orientation over time (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). Studies on social emergent phenomenon suggested that interaction among social members not always create uniformity of opinion. Instead, researchers argued that the level of agreement that members reach could vary depending on a number of individual differences and contextual factors (e.g.,Moscovici, 1976; Isenberg, 1986; Nowak, Szarnrej, & Latane, 1990). For example, the level of agreement that a team reaches is influenced by the persuasiveness of majority versus minority argument, members’ self-presentational needs, or a desire to have a distinctive group 14 identity (e.g., Burnstein, & Vinokur, 1977; Hogg & Abrams, 1988). This study will also represent the team members’ agreement on team goal orientation over time as an important variables that influence the process and outcomes of team goal orientation. Emggence Processes of Team Goal Orientaaion Role importance. The process of influencing team member motivation in teams is not symmetric. Some individuals have a greater influence than others and therefore contribute to the emergence of team goal orientation to a greater extent. According to Latane (1981), the extent to which any group member is influenced by pressure from others is determined by (a) the number of group members who exert pressure to change; (b) the strength (determined by the power) and immediacy (i.e., physical proximity) of those group members; and (c) the strength and number of other group members who are targeted for change. Therefore, how an individual will be subject to the influence of other individuals is determined by the power difference among those individuals. In other words, as one’s power increases compared to other individuals, it is more likely that s/he influences other individuals, and it is less likely that s/he is influenced by other individuals (House, 1988; Mintzberg, 1983; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977). The amount of power an individual has is determined by both individual and structural factors including his/her structural position, expert knowledge, or role criticality (French & Raven, 1959; Brass & Burkhardt, 1993; Mechanic, 1962). As individuals hold more important positions that often lead them to have unique and important knowledge that is associated with those positions, they will possess more power compared to individuals who hold lower positions. It was suggested that the difference in individual rates of interactions with other members is based on an individual’s role importance in the team (Borgatta, & 15 Bales, 1953). Thus, if one has a more important role in the team, s/he will have more power to influence other individuals. One of the most salient roles in a team is the team leader. Team leaders are often in charge of directing and managing developmental processes of their teams and their leadership behaviors were construed to impact team members’ motivational processes such as goal setting, monitoring, and feedback (Kozlowski, Gully, McHugh, Salas, Cannon-Bower, 1996). Leaders were suggested to exert a strong influence on the development of shared perceptions (Kozlowski & Doherty, 1989). For example, a leader’s mood influenced the affective tone of the team in a way that a leader’s positive mood led to a positive affective tone for the team (Sy, Cote, & Saavedra, 2005). This study proposes that team goal orientation not only emerges from interactions among team members, but also that the emergence process will depend on the role structure within the team. Specifically, when teams have a relatively equal role structure in which everyone has a role with similar importance, they influence each other to a similar degree. In this case, the process of sharing common goal orientation will not be dependent on any particular member’s goal orientation; therefore, team goal orientation would not be based on any particular member. Team goal orientation in this case reflects the average goal orientation of team members. Accordingly, as previous studies on team goal orientation have assumed, team goal orientation would be some form of aggregation of individual goal orientation when teams have an equal role structure. In teams with highly differentiated role structures, such as teams with leaders, there is an asymmetry in power among members and it is inappropriate to assume that members will influence each other to a similar degree. As I mentioned earlier, team leaders influence other 16 members to a greater degree. Therefore, when there is a leader in teams, team goal orientation will emerge mainly based on the goal orientation of team leaders. When there is a high discrepancy in role structure, team goal orientation can no longer be assumed to be the aggregation of individual goal orientation. Instead, the leader’s goal orientation may become the team’s goal orientation. Also, leadership studies argued that one of the most important leadership traits is having a high level of achievement motivation such that leaders with a higher achievement motivation were more likely to successfully guide team activities toward challenging goals and positive outcomes (e.g., Judge, Bono, llies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Yukl & Van Fleet 1992). Moreover, achievement motivation was suggested to serve as a higher order motivation of goal orientation because individuals who have a high level of achievement motivation were more likely to have a higher level of learning and performance goal orientation (Elloit & Church, 1997). Therefore, this study argues that leaders with high achievement motivation are more likely to influence team members’ learning and performance goal orientation and members with highly achievement oriented team leaders will have higher team learning and performance goal orientations. Hypothesis la: Role structure will influence the process of team goal orientation emergence such that higher discrepancies in role importance result in team goal orientation emergence based on the team member who has higher role importance. Hypothesis 1b: A leader’s achievement motivation will positively influence team members’ learning and performance goal orientation. l7 Homogeneity in individual trait ggaj orientation. As members with different goal orientations are working together, the members influence each other’s goal Orientation. Team goal orientation emerges through interaction among members, and team members come to share their understanding of the team’s emphasis on learning, performance, or avoidgoal orientations. As previously discussed, immediacy to other members determines the extent to which any team member is influenced by pressure from others (Latane, Nowak, & Liu, 1994). In their study, Latane, Nowak, and Liu (1994) suggested that if an individual is surrounded by others with different attitudes than s/he has, the individual is more likely to change his/her attitude accordingly than when the individual is surrounded by others who have similar attitudes. Consequently, the total amount of change in attitudes is greater when an individual is surrounded by others with different attitudes. They called this phenomenon dynamism, and they suggest that dynamism is greater when individuals are surrounded by others with different attitudes (Latane, Nowak, & Liu, 1994). In a similar vein, where there is a high degree of homogeneity among mernbers’ trait goal orientations, members are less likely to change their goal orientation, and the total amount of change in individual goal orientation due to the influence from other members will be small because members have similar trait goal orientations in the first place. In this case, members will share team level goal orientation not because they are influenced by each other’s goal orientation, but because they have similar trait goal orientations from the beginning. In contrast, when there is a low degree of homogeneity among members’ trait goal orientation, members will be influenced by different goal orientations of other members, and the total amount of change in goal orientation due to influence from other members will be greater because members have a dissimilar trait 18 goal orientation in the beginning. In this case, to have a shared understanding on team level goal orientation, members should go though intensive interaction processes in which they influence each other’s goal orientation. Hypothesis 2: Heterogeneity of trait goal orientation among team members will be positively related to the amount of change in perceived state team goal orientation over time. Emergence processes of team goal orientation and team effectiveness When individuals are working with members who are similar to them, they generally feel more comfortable and satisfied. Studies have suggested that working in heterogeneous teams can instigate fiiction, poor coordination, anger, and mutual dissatisfaction. Many researchers have focused on demographic characteristics of individuals that are related to members’ satisfaction and performance, such as gender, age, or race (e.g., LePine, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, Colquitt, & Ellis, 2002; Martins, Milliken, Wiesenfeld, & Salgado, 1996; O'Reilly, Williams, & Barsade, 1998), and only a handful of studies have investigated how the similarities of motivation among members will increase their satisfaction and performance that are derived from working as a team. For example, it has been found that “type A” individuals, who are generally competitive and have a high achievement motivation, had higher satisfaction and performance when they were working with other “type A” individuals (Keinan & Koren, 2002). In addition, it has been suggested that the congruence between an individual’s goal orientation and his/her 19 perceived others’ goal orientation elicited greater individual satisfaction and individual contributions in teams (Kristof-Brown & Stevens, 2002). In a similar vein, when an individual’s goal orientation and perceived others’ goal orientations are compatible, attraction to the other’s goal orientation increases, because pursuing other’s goal orientation also satisfies his/her individual goal orientation (e.g., Deutsch, 1949; Katz & Block, 2000). In contrast, when individual goal orientation and other’s goal orientation are incompatible, in which an individual perceives that others in the team have different goal orientations than s/her does, attraction to the other’s goal orientation will decrease, and s/he will feel more pressure to change his/her existing goal orientation, and pursuing other’s goal orientation interferes with individual goal orientation (Katz, & Block, 2000; Weingart &Weldon, 1991). Moreover, when there is a high degree of heterogeneity in individuals’ goal orientation, one would perceive a conflict between his/her goal and others’ goal orientation so that his/her effort toward one goal interferes with efforts toward the perceived team goal. Therefore, they may perceive that concentrating on one goal prevents concentration on another (Zander & Forward, 1968). Having different goals, as a result, may lead to incongruence, inconsistency, and inconsonance among efforts to attain the team goals, because all goals may not be satisfied simultaneously (Deutsch, 1949). For teams with members with different goal orientations, integration of different goal orientations will take place as team members working together. Team members will consciously and nonconscioulsy adapt their goal orientations based on perceived others’ goal orientations. Subsequently, cognitive resources that are available for team performance will be decreased while team members are adjusting themselves to each other’s goal orientation, and team performance will 20 suffer fi'om the process of team goal orientation emergence. In other words, integration of different goal orientations requires the time and effort of team members, and team performance will suffer from the process of team goal orientation emergence. Once team goal orientation has emerged, however, these negative impacts of the emergence process on team performance will decrease. Therefore, Hypothesis La; The perceived differences between individual and team goal orientations will be negatively related to satisfaction of individuals in the team. Hypothesis 3b: The perceived differences between individual goal orientation and team goal orientations will be negatively related to the performance of the team in the beginning, but this negative relationship will decrease over time. Tolerance for Ambigaity as Moderating Variables on Team Goal Orientation Process. It was previously argued that heterogeneity of members’ goal orientation will be negatively related to the satisfaction and performance of team members because the members go through more substantial changes in individual goal orientation during the emergence of the team level of goal orientation. In this section, however, I argue that the relationship will be moderated by individuals’ levels of tolerance for ambiguity. The tolerance for ambiguity is defined as an individual’s propensity to view ambiguous situations as either threatening or desirable. When individuals have a high tolerance for ambiguity, they are more likely to experience less anxiety when they are exposed to uncertain situations such as workplace diversity or organizational change, and show adaptive reactions in those situations (Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welboume, 1999; Chen 21 & Hooijberg, 2000). Therefore, as individuals have high tolerance for ambiguity, the more likely the individuals would experience satisfaction and increases in performance from experiences that involve changes. When there is a high degree of heterogeneity in individual goal orientation in teams, a higher degree of uncertainty will be imposed on team members because each member needs to be sensitive about other members’ goal orientation and adjust their own goal orientation accordingly to have the team goal orientation. A high degree of heterogeneity in individual goal orientation would pose ambiguities to the individuals; in the beginning it is not clear what the team goal orientation is; instead, each individual needs to be more sensitive to the role importance of each individual and other members’ goal orientations to adjust their goal orientation accordingly. During this changing process, individuals with high tolerance for ambiguity would feel less anxious when they need to change their goal orientation and more satisfied with their goal orientation changing experience. Also, because individuals with a high tolerance for ambiguity perceive changing experiences as desirable events rather than a threat, they are more likely to react positively and adapt successfully. Therefore, although overall satisfaction and performance will be lower when there is a high degree of heterogeneity in individual goal orientation, individuals with high tolerance for ambiguity will experience less decreases in their satisfaction and performance. Therefore, Hypothesis 4a: Tolerance for ambiguity will moderate the relationship between goal orientation heterogeneity and satisfaction. 22 Hyp_othesis 4b: Tolerance for ambiguity will moderate the relationship between goal orientation heterogeneity and performance. Team goal orientation and team outcomes The characteristics of team goal orientation are suggested to be similar to the characteristics of individual goal orientation. For example, teams with high learning goal orientation Show better performance in adaptive learning tasks and novel tasks that require constant learning, which are consistent with the studies on individual level learning goal orientation (e.g., Bunderson, & Sutcliffe, 2003; Ford, Smith, Weissbein, Gully, & Salas, 1998; Kozlowski et al, 2001). In addition, individuals with a high learning goal orientation have performed better in more complex tasks that require constant learning processes; whereas individuals with a high performance goal orientation perform better in simpler tasks that require relatively less effort to perform well (Bar-Eli, Tenenbaum, Pie, & Kudar,l997; Steele-Johnson, Beauregard, Hoover, & Schmidt, 2000). Researchers explain that, for performing well in complex tasks, individuals normally go though a series of negative feedback experiences and modify their strategies accordingly. Unlike individuals with high performance or avoid goal orientation, who interpret negative feedback as a sign of failure, individuals with high learning goal orientation interpret negative feedback as information that helps them to develop their competence. Consequently, individuals with a high learning goal orientation show adaptive responses to the complex tasks and put forth more effort into the tasks, which in turn, is related to increases in satisfaction and performance. 23 In addition, it is suggested that learning and performance goal orientation are distinctly related to different outcomes such as satisfaction and performance at the individual level (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001). Specifically, it was found that individuals with a high learning, goal orientation felt more satisfaction in achievement settings than individuals with a high performance goal orientation, whereas, individuals with a high performance goal orientation performed better than individuals with a high learning goal orientation (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001). In a similar vein, I argue that a different team goal orientation will be distinctly related to the performance and satisfaction of the team. Because teams with high learning goal orientation want to increase their competencies, every progress that they make on task is interpreted as success and negative feedback that they get is interpreted as information to learn. Therefore, teams with high learning goal orientation will be positively related to satisfaction. Because teams with high performance goal orientation want to perform well, they will actively find a way to improve their performance, which will lead to improved team performance. In contrast, teams with high avoid goal orientation want to avoid demonstrating their incompetence, which will lead to decrease in performance. Therefore, Hypothesis 5a: Team learning goal orientation will be positively related to the satisfaction of the team. Hypothesis 5b: Team performance goal orientation will be positively related to the performance of the team. Hypothesis 5c: Team avoid goal orientation will be negatively related to the performance of the team. 24 Dagme of ‘Aggeement on Team Ggl Orientation Although team members influence each other’s goal orientation and they will share a common perception on the team’s emphasis on learning, performance, and avoid goal orientation over time, it does not mean they will have an identical goal orientation at the end. In the social influence literature, various forms of end states through emergent social phenomena were suggested (Latane, Nowak, & Liu, 1994). The researchers suggested that not all emergence results are the same. Instead, there are different end states of social emergence phenomena. Particularly, they distinguished between unification versus stable equibria based on the degree of agreement among group members (Latane, Nowak, & Liu, 1994). Unification occurs when social members reache a complete consensus on a common attitude; whereas, stable equibria occurs when difference of individual attitudes persist and firrther interaction no longer leads to changes in individuals’ attitudes. In a similar vein, it was suggested that different groups have different levels of agreement among members on the group’s clirnate and such a difference has implications for higher-level processes. For example, when there is low variance (high agreement) among individuallevel scores such that team members share a similar perception, it indicates that higher level process produces a strong collective behavior in which individuals behave as a group, whereas when there is high variance (less agreement) among individuals’ perceptions on group climate, each individual will respond differently and there is no collective cognition or action that is shared among the group of individuals (Mischel, 1973). In this paper, I argue that the extent to which team members agree on each dimension of goal orientation will moderate the relationship between team goal orientation and team effectiveness. For example, as team members 25 have higher agreement on performance goal orientation, the relationship between the team’s performance goal orientation and team performance will be strengthened. As team members have a higher agreement on learning goal orientation, the relationship between the team’s learning goal orientation and team satisfaction will be strengthened. Hypgthesis 6a: Team members’ agreement on learning goal orientation will moderate the relationship between team learning goal orientation and team satisfaction. Hypothesis 6b: Team members’ agreement on performance goal orientation will moderate the relationship between team performance goal orientation and team performance. Hypothesis 6c: Team members’ agreement on avoid goal orientation will moderate the relationship between team avoid goal orientation and team performance. Model Summm Overall, the model proposed in this study provides an account of the processes by which the emergence of team-level goal orientation and its influence on team-level outcomes (Figure 1). First, this study proposes that the emergence process of team goal orientation is influenced by leader’s goal orientation (H1). Also, it was proposed that heterogeneity in members’ trait goal orientation will be related to changes in team goal orientation over time (H2). Second, in hypotheses 3 and 4, it was proposed that the perceived differences between individual and team goal orientation will influence team 26 satisfaction and performance. Finally, it was suggested that team goal orientation and team members’ agreement on the team goal orientation will be related to team satisfaction and performance (H5 & H6). Because individuals are embedded in teams, this study used both individual and team-level variables. Depending on the hypothesis, this study used additive (e.g., aggregating individual-level tolerance for ambiguity variable), reference-shift (e.g., aggregating perceived team goal orientation variable), or dispersion (e.g.,variance or standard deviation of individual trait goal orientation) model of composition (Chan, 1998). To help clarify which hypothesis used which level of variables and how each of the individual-level variable was composed to the team-level, the summary of the hypotheses and levels of dependent and independent variables are presented in the Table 1. For instance, in the hypothesis 1, this study proposed that leaders’ perceived team goal orientation will influence other members’ perceived team goal orientation. In this hypothesis, the independent variable was leaders’ goal orientation and the leader’s goal orientation was a team-level variable because two members were embedded within a leader of their team. The hypothesis 2 examined how the within-team standard deviation in team members’ trait goal orientation (team-level) influenced the changes in individuals’ perceived team goal orientation (individual-level). The within-team standard deviation on members’ trait goal orientations is a team-level variable because a dispersion of individual trait goal orientation represents a characteristics of the team. In the hypothesis 3, it was proposed that team members’ perceived differences will influence team performance and satisfaction. In this hypothesis, the team members’ difference scores between individual and team state goal orientations were averaged to 27 represent the team-level of perceived differences, which in turn, influence the team-level of outcomes. In addition, team satisfaction was represented by averaging the team members’ satisfaction. Team performance was the score that team has accumulated on the task. In the hypothesis 4, a team-level of the tolerance for ambiguity was suggested to influence team satisfaction as well as performance. In this hypothesis, team-level of tolerance for ambiguity was represented by averaging team members’ tolerance for ambiguity score. In the hypothesis 5 and 6, team goal orientation was represented by aggregating individual members’ perceived team goal orientation. Finally, the hypothesis 6 suggested the agreement on members’ team goal orientation will influence team performance and satisfaction. In the hypothesis, the agreement on team goal orientation was represented by taking the standard deviation of team members’ team goal orientation. 28 GE eoufieoto :80 no EoEon< - 9.5 333.5. He 8§§£ - AME “H2588 new gas Ea 3.223 50389 832.485 3335a - cowoflmuem - Beecher?“ - 888:5 BETEeoH C I ZOHHo§g0e85 2cm bmocomoEom NE eoufieeto :80 38,—. 29 82882.8 38w 883 30208 88> 83882.8 38» 832338 803808 803 8 880m 0088.38 0w80>< - 53.858 .83 4838.838 888 38 32088830: 803808 803 00883 .83808 _ 83382.8 38w 803303 888328 08 .8 838.838 0w8>< 8303 .8 0w8>< - .08..— 803. 854 8B 038088 :35 338383 8.3 00883. 83: .833828 83 83 .083 302083 88> 88 83 :35 8380328 33803 83 83882.8 8m 83 $8883 23 8 838 23 8 008808 832238 .8808 0.3 2 308—8 32,3383 03 :23 883 88 .8 880m 3 8 8033828 88 803 38 8533338 00883883 888 0088.38 0w80>< 884 8b ~08: 8308 80383 808.38 338m 83.— 828828 How 8303 3020803 88> 83882.8 88 .8303 23 8 2832238 .8 838833 832238 803808 8808 08 9 3228 30.380: 03 :35 8303 803808 8303 882 .8 8.83. a 8 8o3883o 8cm 803 38 832238 .8 838.838 0883.. 008.38 0w8>< 2084 80B 2084 8a. 803303 808.38 30208.” 8mm .083 88 838828 a 2838830 38» 833338 8 888 .8 8883 08 3 30828 8838828 38w 8.3 .83808 803 b02338 03 33$ 83808 8303 8083 830. 302088 2833238 .8 83283 388m 884 83388 884 88H 83382.8 38m 8.3 .8 320888332 “8 8833828 .803883o 38m 38m 8803 0089080 838828 38m 88 8388 38833 3828 .883 35.— 8628 83 ash ass 88:8 8888 new .838; 8 8338800 >9 83283800 a 882 >9 .084 Z 288on 881838—08— 88 38 >Q 38 >— 888 m E80328 30285 I .833. 30 832830 80m 82 3020083 .8808 ~0>01m 88H. .82 23 .8 0088.883 23 03 3220.. 383803 00888.88 8% 882 .8 0w8>< 88»— 88h 03 :35 832830 80m 388 80 H 8mm 832830 80m 82 .82 3030083 803808 23 .8 00888383 23 2 3228 383803 03 00888822 88,—. 82 8 0w80>< 8>0A 8H. 884 8B 33> 832830 80m 00888.88 80 H. in: 832830 803 82 .82 23 838.838 3020083 .8888 .8 838.838 0888 23 2 3228 303283 883808 82 .8 0m80>< 382 .8 0m8>< 881— 80 .H 884 8B 03 33> 832830 803 28.82 80 H 8mm 8032830 80m 82 3020083 88> 832830 80m 8333308 .83808 82 .8 8.88 0088.38 0383.. - 53.388 8.3 .8808 38 8.888.203 00883 .83808 832830 80w 80383 8380320.— 23 8088880.“ 80 H 82 .8 0883.. - 884 80 H 88»— 88 28308 :23 .9838 8.3 0088 H 832 8.858 338 31 noufiaoto 3% 39m :33 @033qu .Eonaoa 8on mo omfiu>< - noufiaoto Row 20>“ :82 333.59 dogma—Stun :88 v5 “Saguaro How 296 :82 8953 .$3808 :38 .«o 93.80%? 2: 880on BB magneto Rom occupy—atom 88H maggot Edam - 3.6; 88% _o>oq 88H 20% no 808023 .flonfioa 83% new: doggone Bow ‘ negate.“ 8on 330% .muoaaoa :83 mo owfio>< - noufiaoto Row “gonna—prom .ooggotom :88 EB now—Snore Row 8on 33% oogofioa 858 5953 £583.28 05 .Eonaoa 8on no 88308 EB nouflaoto Row moaning oogotom 83H maggot vaugm - .264 Each 36A 88% no “888%.“ @3808 839 ”no: debuggers flow .58 B>Beon 33808 :88 .«o omfio>< - cougars douoflmumm 83H amass“ Row :82 wozoouog was gangsta Row mg“: 8on 8053 nouoamflfim bong—08 :88 mo “€303.32 05 28268 EB massacre Bow .Eonaoa :83 mo ow80>< 893% wfivafim - ~33 Each 354 Each wag“: no «8833a .fionfioa 83H ”mom 8:538 63¢ 32 METHOD Task Overview In order to address the hypotheses, a task was used that was somewhat familiar to our participants and that would be seen as important — the task of inspecting luggage. A total of 26 x-ray images of suitcases were used in the experiment. Some of these images contained weapons; others did not. Example images of suitcases are displayed in Appendix A. Three participants formed a team and asked to inspect each image as accurately as possible. After inspecting each image, teams indicated whether they “searc ” the bag (if they were to believe it might contain a weapon) or “clear” the bag (they believe it contains no weapon). After every 5 images, participants completed a questionnaire and had an opportunity to study the manual. Based on Wood’s (1986) model of complexity, this task was thought to have a relatively low complexity. There were a lot of information and x-ray examples regarding potential. weapons in the manual, which participants were allowed to refer anytime they want during the experiment. Also, the task had little or no dynamic complexity as the information and standards for performance did not change. Participants and Design A total of 387 participants were recruited from psychology classes at a large mid- western university. Participants received extra-credit for their participation. Participation in this study was voluntary; therefore, they could decline participation at anytime during the experiment. The average age of the subject was 19.35 and 67% of the participants 33 were female. Fifteen participants (five teams) were not able to show a minimum level of interaction among team members during the experiment. Their data were not analyzed, thereby reducing the N to 372. In this study, to examine emergence of team-level goal orientation, I manipulated both role structure of teams (teams with leaders vs. teams without leaders) and achievement motivation of leaders (teams with leaders vs. teams with high achievement motive leaders). Achievement motivation is the higher-order motive that influences goal orientation of the individuals (Elliot & Church, 1997). Specifically, it was suggested that achievement motivation is positively related to both mastery and performance goal orientation. Therefore, manipulating the achievement motivation of team leaders was expected to be related to the goal orientation of the team members. As a result this study had three conditions; condition 1: No leader condition, condition 2: Leader conditiOn, and condition 3: Leader with achievement motivation condition. Procedure Right after the participants signed up for the study online, they were asked to complete several questionnaires. These questionnaires measured trait goal orientation, trait achievement motivation, tolerance for ambiguity, general self-efficacy, personality, ability, and demographics. Upon their arrival, participants were randomly assigned to a three-person team. Participants were told that they were to assume they were part of an airport security team and were going to process x—ray images of passenger luggage. Each individual in a team was assigned a letter based on his/her position. A person who sat on the left was assigned 34 the letter A. A person who sat in the middle was assigned the letter B. A person who sat on the right was assigned the letter C. For the leader condition and the leader with achievement motivation condition (condition 2 and condition 3), a person who sat in the middle (Person B) became the leader of the teams. After the brief introduction about the experiment, participants were given 3 minutes to get to know their team members and come up with a nickname for their teams. Also, a training manual was provided for each individual as a reference that they could use throughout the experiment. To increase participants’ involvement, the experimenter told participants they would be tested on the manual as well as on the task at the end of the experiment. Right after the introduction period, team leaders in the leader with achievement motivation condition read an achievement-related story and were asked to reflect upon it (Appendix B). For each trial, an x-ray image of luggage was projected on the screen. Team members first examined the image and then silently made individual decisions on their survey booklet about whether or not the luggage should be cleared or searched (Appendix B). After the individual decision, team members freely discussed the luggage to reach their final decision. For the teams without a leader condition, team members were encouraged to collectively make their team’s final decision and enter their decision in the computer (Appendix D). For the conditions with leaders (condition 2 and condition 3), leaders (Person B) made the final team decision on the computer. Right after they input the decision (for all conditions), the computer gave “Correct!” or “Incorrect!” feedback (Appendix D). For each correct decision, teams were awarded 10 points; however no penalty was enforced for incorrect decisions. There were no points given for a practice 35 trial. After the practice trial, participants completed their first questionnaire. After every 5 trial, participants completed the same questionnaire. There were a total of 25 trials. Experimental Manipulations Role discrepancy. There were two conditions of role discrepancy. In the low role discrepancy condition, there was no assigned leader who made final decisions about whether to ‘clear’ or ‘search’ the bag. Each member was encouraged to cooperatively make the final decisions. In the high role discrepancy condition, team leaders had a more important role and they were authorized to make and submit their teams’ final decisions. Achievement Motivation of Leaders. For teams with leaders, there are two types of teams; teams with leaders and teams with a high achievement motive leader. For teams with high achievement motivation leaders, to increase leaders’ achievement motivation, leaders read a story related to success and accomplishment (Appendix B). Manipulation Check. To check the role discrepancy manipulation, members rated other team members on a perceived leadership scale at the end of team session. Because individuals B were assigned as leaders in the leader condition and leader with achievement motivation condition, it was expected that team members perceived individuals B as having more authority in teams in the leader and the leader with achievement motivation conditions. To check the achievement motivation manipulation, participants completed an achievement motivation questionnaire afier each round (five pieces of luggage). It was expected that individual B in the leader with achievement 36 motivation would have higher achievement motivation than individual B in either the leader condition or non leader condition. Measures Cognitive Ability. Cognitive ability was measured right after participants signed up for the experiment. It was assessed for use as a control variable in all analyses. At the beginning of the study, subjects reported either their ACT or SAT scores. Both ACT and SAT scores were converted to z scores by means of their respective national normative data. T_rait Individual Goal Orientation. Trait goal orientation was measured online immediately after a participant signed up for experiment using the nine-item goal orientation scale developed by Elliot and McGregor (2001). See Appendix E for items. Heterogeneity in Trait G031 Orientation. Heterogeneity of trait goal orientation was operationalized as the degree of within-unit difference in individual members’ trait goal orientation. The standard deviation on trait goal orientation among team members was calculated to represent the heterogeneity in trait goal orientation (i.e., dispersion composition model; Chan, 1998) gate bdifiduaLfioal Orientation. State individual goal orientation was measured right after the practice round and at the end of every round using the nine-item goal orientation scale developed by Elliot and McGregor (2001). See Appendix E for items. 37 State Team Goal Orientation. State team goal orientation was measured with a modified version of goal orientation items developed by Elliot and McGregor (2001). The modification entailed changing the referent fiom individual to team . This measure was administrated right after the practice round and at the end of every round. See Appendix E for items. The average ICC(l) value for team performance goal orientation was .06 across the six waves. The average ICC(l) value for team mastery goal orientation was .14 across the six waves. The average ICC(l) value for team avoid goal orientation was .10 across the six waves. In addition to the ICC(1), the multiple item Rwou) was computed for each scale by team. The average RWGU) for team performance, mastery, and avoid goal orientations across 6 waves were ,.73,.83, and .70 respectively. These values were greater than .70 cutoff that are widely used in organizational psychology studies as an indicator of adequate agreement among members within teams (e. g., Zohar, 2000; George, 1990; Judge & Bono, 2000). Combining the results from both ICC(l) and rwgu) , there are sufficient supports for aggregating this measure to the team level of analysis by calculating the average value within teams. Team Perceived Differences in Goa] orientation. Perceived differences in goal orientations were calculated by subtracting state team goal orientation from state individual goal orientation for each individual by each wave. This gives the difference scores between individual and team goal orientation. Then, to represent the variable for team-level, the team perceived differences was calculated by averaging the perceived differences of individual team members. Thus, teams with higher perceived differences members possessed higher value for team perceived differences. 38 Agreement on Team Goal Orientation. Agreement on team goal orientation was operationalized as the degree of within-unit difference in individual members’ state team goal orientation. The standard deviation on state team goal orientation among team members was calculated to represent the agreement in team goal orientation (i.e., dispersion composition model; Chan, 1998). Tolerance for Ambiggity. Tolerance for ambiguity was measured right after participants signed up for the study using scales developed by McLain (1993). See Appendix F for items. Team Tolerance for Ambiguity. Team tolerance for ambiguity was represented as the average of individual team members’ tolerance for ambiguity (i.e., additive composition model; Chan, 1998). fidership Emergence. To check the role discrepancy manipulation, leadership emergence was measured at the end of the study to check the manipulation of role discrepancy. Individuals rated their fellow team members on the five-item questionnaire that was developed by Cronshaw and Lord (1987). See Appendix G for items. Team Satisfaction. Satisfaction was assessed after the first, the third, and the fifth round. A 4 -item team satisfaction scale was adopted from Cook, Helworth, Wall, and Warr (1981). The scale is a seven-point Likert scale, which ranges from “extremely dissatisfied” to “extremely satisfied.” See Appendix H for items. Team satisfaction was represented by calculating the average value within teams. 39 Team Performance. Team performance was assessed using the total number of points teams have acquired at the end of the each round. For each correct decision teams acquired 10 points. Each round was consisted of 5 images of the luggage and there was a total of 5 rounds. RESULTS Preliminag Anfiyses and Manipulation Check Table 2 presents the overall means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations for individual-level variables. Trait goal orientations were generally positively related to state individual and team goal orientations over time. Achievement motivation was generally positively related to state individual and team performance and mastery goal orientation. Also, for within each round, state individual goal orientations were positively related to state team goal orientation. Satisfactions were positively related to achievement motivation and performance and mastery goal orientations. Table 3 presents the overall means, standard deviations, and correlations for team-level variables. Team-level of trait goal orientation were generally positively related to the state team goal orientation over time. Also, the team-level of tolerance for ambiguity was generally related to the state team avoid goal orientation such that teams with members who were less tolerance for ambiguities were more likely to have a high level of team avoid goal orientation. Also, team mastery and performance goal orientation were generally positively related to team performance and satisfaction. In addition, team goal 4o orientations were generally negatively related to within-team standard deviation on the team goal orientations such that as the team goal orientations increased, the within-team agreement on the team goal orientations were also increased. 41 doumaoto Row con—«Eaton 8.3 363.65% Atobov nouguoa aaofio>oEo§5 GE :25 So 85 :35 N3 8.? 3.? 3o 85 So as can 2:2 Wm . . .- . . . .- . . . . . 2263 83 2? 8o .12 So 25 tag :3 8e So So an 8:22 E3 :8... 33.... :86 8.? N3 8.? 35 3.? :..o 3.... 385058 :3 :26 :ad 3.? m3 :2? 85 8.? «3 8a 809.325.” :5 :85 3o :5 .85 3o 8.? and 8+ 802:8.» :3 Ed 2.? 85 85 ..:.? 28 mom 52:88 - 8.? 2.? 8.? 85 m3 Ned b=E2-_m€s&£ .6 3&3? as.“ £8388 £2535 853m ago: . N 2.5 42 .62qu 358.8%?” Each": £23838 Row 20% :88 02% REESE dousgto Bow Emma :83 38m 0966353 dousgto Row 358.880 :88 083 356.8% douSnoto How 203 8.3 _§c$_v§~ doufiaoto Row .0838 38m 352305 a Reva ... ..SVQ ...... ..Nm mHZSBZ . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . @0330 3.2 0 ......0N0 ......nw0 ~00. m00 .....0N0 000 ......m— 0 N00 W00 ~00 0~ 0 E. 0 M? m 002 SP .mN . . . . . . . . - . - . . . . . 3963000.” 3.30 ......0N0 ......NNO ...m— 0 ......m— 0 000 .....NMO 000 «S 0 m00 m00 #00. 000 SM Ehém 0>§ :vmd 0.0.0 8.0 ......wmd ......mmd 5.2.0 «mud 35.0- 0— .0 v0.0- 00.0 00.0 00.0 m0.m OO¢~AW£ .MW D>§ ......mmd aim—.0 .....de N00 N00 ......0N0 M00. :0- 5.0- 00.0 ~00. 5.2.0 mw.0 find 0024:: .NW O>§ 3.2.0 3.3.0 2.3.0 No.0 3.3.0 M00 ......bmd ..L _.0- 32.0. 00.0 50.0 2.0- 0w.0 SYN OCAAWE AW 0>fl3 «ab—.0 3.000 «...—Nd «2.0 00.0 ..i ~N.0 2.0 00.0.. 50.0 No.0 no.0 2.0 3.0 MNM m mama/w .0Nv 0 “3 3.2.0 3.3.0 ......mbd a; H0- No.0 33.0 00.0 no.0 “um—.0- No.0. N00 1.3.0 3.0 00d 0 “no“ .20 v0.0- 3.0- ...w—d. no.0 >00 No.0. 9 .0 3.0.. 50.0 no.0- v0.0- 2.0 04% wdm ngvfiuuom .fi . . . . . . . . - . . - . . . . 32630 ......mmo N00 m00 :3 0 ......0N0 : 0 0~ 0 000 0— 0 V00 000 m00 2.0 woN ~OO<8HHE . . . . . . . . - . . . - . . . 20330 :2 0 ......bmo 3.30 ~00 m00 ......NNO N00. ......NNO M00 N00 _00 000 w00 2.. m «82 SH .2 263 ......Nnd ......wmd ......mmd w0.0 ......2.0 00.0 ......wmd no.0. «2.0- 00.0 80 W00. Nw.0 v.0.m \OOAAPH .20 . . . . . . . . - . . - . . . . 23.5.0 3.5m 0 mo 0 —0 0. “...—N 0 ......Vm 0 N0 0 2...: 0 gig 0 ...: 0 0_ 0 N0 0 m0 0 00 0 ma N NOO< 05 .1 . . . . . . . - . - . - . . - . . . 2393 :am 0 ......NNO ......Nm 0 ~00 m00 ......wN0 ~00 w00 >00 vo 0 N00 :2 0 5 0 vw m <82 05 .2 N_ : 0_ 0 w h 0 n v m N _ Om 2 €95.80 N 033 43 sic _ .o *3 .0 “33¢ 1 fie- 8.0 :omd nod ood :5 .o. 86 mod :2 .c mwd REM v0 do< .mm 36 vod :6. 36. cod mod. 86 E .o. mod. n _ .o- 3 .o. «w _ .0 9% 365 mmuom 6m tend mod 36 {cad «m6 :3 .o «M _ .o mod- SF _ .c 36. 86 mod mwd m _ .m mOO< SH 6m :36 3.3.0 3..de Ed. 36 :Ed 86. 3&6. 3.0 86 mod. ...N—d Ema mvd mOOE EH .2 3.de Sum _ .o «L. _ .o 3 .o 1.— fio Sd .....mmd 3.0- mod- 86 cod no.0- 86 SN mOOm 8H .3” «and no.0 36 .336 nmd unfio ......w—d .326- *26 36. mod No.0 86 mod mOO< 2: .mm 2.36 :3 .o .3de Nod. 86 «and 36. .26.. 86- mod 56 ...Sd wwd end m8: 9: .Nm 9..de L _.o :36 mod 3.. ad 36 ......bmd «E .o- u: .6. mod 86 86. mod m©.N mOOm d5 . _ m 2., _ N6 .8de 3., _ N6 86 mod tomd ..m— .c mod- 8.0 86 86 mod Nvd had mm do< 6m :26 :36 9.th «E .9 mod «um—d cod cod .3: .o- 86 8.0. ......m fl 6 36 8M m0 do< .mm 8.6. 1.26 vod mod. mod 86 No.0. 36- cod mod- mod 86 we; ¢~.n N 3m .3 S .o 36 m— .o- 5.0 9 .o .36. mod mod- cod 0 _ .o- cod- m _ .o 3% when Nfom 6N ....mmd mod bod :hmd .....omd :3 .o 86 *2 .o- *2 .o no.0- 86 ~06 mwd m _ .m NOO< SH 6m 2 _ g S a w b e n v m N . Om 2 @2528 m 2%: 44 mOOE .25 ..85 .155 3.5 55.5. ..25 S5. ..25- 555 .55 ~55 ..25 55.5 :5 55.; :35 E5 :25 555 .25 55.5 :25 .2? ..35. ~55 555 «5.5 55.5 55.5 5%wm ..25 ..555 :35 25 85 .25 55.5 55? 55.5 a? 8? ..25 55.5 :5 mm .59.. .55 .25 ..25 :25 :5- 55.5 :55 555 555 :25. 55.5 85- :25 555 2.... no 5375.. ~55 t: .5 85 555- 85. N55 55? 8? 55.5 55.5 55.5 :25 85 e .5 5 am .5. 55.5 :5 55.5. ~55. 555. 85 55.5 555- 85- :5- :5- .555 5.5% 2:.” :35 5.. ..25 :5 555 :35 :35 S5 ..25 55.5- 555 85. 85 3.5 555 25 ”NW ..25 ..5m5 ..5m5 555- 3.5- ..55.5 55.5 .25- 555 55.5 55.5- ..35 .55 9.5 “flow” ..555 ..25 ....N5 555 555 55.5 :35 3? :2? 55.5 55.5 55.5. ~55 555 “Wm.” ..25 555 55.5 :25 2.5 .25 ..25 .2? 85 8.5- 55.5 55.5 55._ 555 “Mom.” ..25 :85 £555 555. 8.5- :25 55.5- 55.5- 85- 25 55.5 ..25 55.5 35 “Ma” :35 ..35 ..25 B5 :5 ~55 :35 .555- :8? _5.5 55.5 S? 555 $5 hum.” ...:5 ..555 ._ _5 555 55.5 .25 55.5 35- 555 ~55 _55 ..25 35 55.5 E 55... .55 2 : 55 5 5 5 5 w v m N _ am 2 5.85558 5 25.5.5 45 55.5- ..5_5 55.5 55? 55.5. 85 .2? 555 55.5 55.5 S5 ..25 555 55.5 5 5.5 .55 ..555 25 55.5 ..555 ..555 2.5 .35 .35. ..25 3? 55.5 55.5 55.5 :5 wmww. .25 ..555 ..555 55? 55.5- ..555 555- ..55? 55.5 55.5 55.5. ..25 55.5 55.5 ”55.55am.“ ..555 .25 ..25 55? 555 S5 ..555 55.5. 2.5. 55.5 55.5 8.5- 55.5 55.5 5005 8.5.55 ..555 555 55.5 ..255 ..555 55.5 :5 .25. 555 S? 55.5 55.5 552 55.5 mew. ..25 ..25 ..555 55.5 55.5 ..555 52? .55? 25.5 55.5 55.5 .555 55.5 55.5 ”New“ ..555 55.5 ..555 55.5 .15 55.5 ..555 .2? ..5_? 55.5 55.5 8.5. 55.5 55.5 5005 55.55 ..555 ..555 ..555 55.5 55.5 .25 555 55? 55.5 55.5 55.5 ..25 55.5 55.5 5m .55... .55 ..25 ..25 ..:5 2? 85 ..25 55.5 55.5 :55? 55.5 55.5 ..25 555 2.5 50 55.555 55.5 25 55? 55? 3.5- 555 55.5 55? 55.5- :5- 25- .25 5.5m. 5.55w 55.55.55 ..555 55.5 55.5 ..555 ..555 :25 .2 .5 .25. .5 25 55.5- 55.5 55.5 _55 5. .5 M55555“ .25 ..555 ..555 55.5. 55.5- ..555 55? ..2? 55.5 555 55.5- .25 55.5 55.5 ”man“ ..555 .25 ....55 55.5- 55.5 55.5 ..555 S5- .25- 55.5 555 255 55.5 55.5 5005 85.55 ..555 55.5 55.5 ..555 ..555 ..555 ..25 ..25- 55.5 55.5- 55.5 55.5 552 55.5 “mm.“ 2 : 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 _ 95 2 2585558 5 25555 46 ~00: :omd 2..th :26 3.3.0 5:..de 86. :MNd 5:.de tend :26 :hwd who mfm Ehfim 555.5 .. 55.5 .155 ..555 ..555 ..555 55? ..555 ..555 ..555 ..555 ..555 55.5 8.5 500585.55 555.5 ..555 ..555 :25 55.5 2.5. ..555 ..555 ..555 ..555 ..555 55.5 55.5 500... 55.55 555.5 ..555 ..555 ..555 55? .255 ..555 ..555 ..25 ..555 55.5 55.5 500253.55 85.5 ..25 .155 555 ..555 ..25 ..555 ..555 ..555 55.5 55.5 5005.55.55 555.5 ..555 55.5 2.5 ..555 ..555 ..5_.5 ..555 2.5 55.5 555 595.55 555.5 555 35 ..555 :25 8.5 ..555 55.5 55.5 50 5% .5_ 55.5 55.5 55.5- 55.5- 3.5 55.5- 55.: 55.55 3.55.2 :55 ..555 .255 ..555 ..555 55.5 55.5 59.85.55 .555 ..555 :25 ..555 55.5 _5.5 WWW“ 255.5 ..555 ..555 55.5 55.5 505 85 .52 A555 ..25 55.5 55.5 50... 5a .2 555.5 255 55.5 28253.2 55 55 _5 55 5_ 5_ 5_ 5_ 52 3 2 am 2 5585558 5 55555 47 58:0 3.0. 5:..de :0N.0 :VNd ......0w.0 m0.0. no.0 :vmd ......0N.0 no.0. 3.35.0 0w.0 5.0.». #0 do< .wm 00.0 no.0. no.0. N~ .0 00.0 —0.0 ......—0.0 m0.0. 3.0. 00.0 N0.0 00.0 3.0— mwdh mfom .hm ....Lvd 5500.0 :VNd ......bNd 533.0 00.0 no.0. 3.000 Q§VN.0 “.3950 3.090 3.3.0 mwd m— .m mOO< EH .0m *naNd **MN.0 .3..th :3 .0 ......0N0 .3000 :0- ..iw _ .0 “sewed :vmd *m~.0 ......N00 55.0 m¢.m WW0” ...... _ w.0 .3..de :mNd ......wmd :mNd **w_ .0 _0.0 5:..de 3..de fumed ......bNd :MN.0 N00 5.0.N mOOm 8H .3” ......hmd 2..de :mNd 3.3.0 3.5.0 8.0 N00- 5.5—0.0 :0N.0 5:..de :Nbd :MNd 5.0.0 m0.m mOmv< 05 .mm ..icNd ......cNd *uowd 1.0— .0 .1000 58055.0 00.0.. :3 .0 “.3000 53de :00 .0 93:0 wwd end Mammy—0W“ .2000 3.05.40 :0N.0 3.5.0 3.3.0 3.5.0 No.0- 3..de :0N.0 5:..de :hmd ....LNd M00 m0.N men .03 Am :mmd 5:..NN.0 ..immd **NN.0 3.3.0 ......mNd no.0 1.2.0 53.5.90 «5.30 ......0N.0 ......mmd N10 5N4... mm— do< .0m :VNd 3.0. 923.0 :VNd «*bNd ..imwd v0.0- 3.0 :wmd MN.0 V0.0. 3055.0 Nw.0 006 MO do< .0N 5.0.0 0~ .0. ...m— .0 00.0 ...—N0 ......mNd «ummd 00.0 *2 .0 M00 50 0_ .0 w0.~ VNfi N «am .wN 00.0 w0.0. M00- 3 .0 w0.0 00.0 3.05.0 M00 5.0.0- M00 3.0 no.0. N_ .3 05.0m N tom .bN ......omd 3.3.0 :NNd **0m.0 3.2.0 00.0 2.0- aimed :VNd ......wmd 3.5.90 3.3.0 mwd m_.m NOO< 8H .0N VN MN NN ~N 0N a M: S 2 2 E m“ Gm 2 5585558 5 25.5.5 48 ...... .... n..... :2.... :2... 8.? :8... :2... :8... :2.... :8... 2... ...... :9... 2.... Sn 8.3.8 - 2.? 8...- 8... 8.? 8.? 2... 2... 8... :8... :3... 2.? 8.? 8.2 8.8 83...: .2... :8... :3... :E... :8... :2... :8... n..... 8... 8.? :8... :2... 2.... 28 89.5.8 .8. :8... :8... :8... :2... :3... :8... .2... 8.? :8... :2.... E... 3.». MW...” ...... :8... :8... :8... :2... :8... ...... ...... :8... :8... a... :8 89.5.8 .2... :8... :3... :8... ...? ...? 2.? :8... :8... 8... 88 8055.8 .2... :2... :2.... :2... :2... 3...- :8... :8... 2.... 88 “mam.” .8... :8... :8... ...... ...... :8... :2... a... 8.8 ..me a... :8... :2... ...... :8... :2.... 8.... 8... m. €48 .2... :8... ...... e..... :2.... 8.... 3m 8.....<..8 E... :5... 0...? :2... ...... 88 8.8.8 - 8.? 8.? 2.... 8.8 2.88 ...... :8... 2.... 28 89.3 .8 8 S 8 8 8 mm mm .m ..m .8 8 8 8 8 am 2 .82....8 N 2.3. 49 m66- ...va6 1.?56 1.6N6 1.5N6 «...—.06 1.36 1.506 1.616 :6 no.6- 1.5N6 1.656 666 —0m wow—)— 65 .—m 6—6 1.w06 1.w—6 1.606 ...an6 ......w—6 1.65.6 1.6— .6 1.6N6 36 :6 1%06 1.—N6 666 66.N mOOA— 65 6m 1.6N6 1.5N6 1.606 1.—06 1.mN6 .3506 15—6 1.m56 1.6N6 1.6—6 nw—6 1.6N6 1.3.6 wv6 —0m 0m— A—o< .6v 66.6 w66 1.3.6 aim—6 66.6 1.666 1.36 1.5N6 1.506 15—6 6—6 W66 1.9.6 —66 m—.m m0 do< 66 1.566 w66- 1.6— .6 6— .6 ...v— .6- ...v— .6 666 1. — N6 1.6N6 1.506 1. — 06 n66- 1.6— .6 56.— 6— .m v 3m .56 1.m66 v— .6- N66. 1&66 N—6- —66- :6 v— .6 666 1.606 1.656 6—6- —66 —6.NN w5.w—— 6,—3— .6v 56.6- 1.w56 1.5N6 1.506 1&56 1.6—6 1.N06 1.NN6 66.6 V6.6- 666- 1.666 1.6N6 66.6 m—.m 50¢. 8—. .mV 56.6- 1.NN6 1&06 1.5N6 1.—N6 1.556 1.5— .6 1&06 1.606 .. — —6 666- 1.».N6 1.n56 —m.6 min 600—)— 8—. .3. v— .6 1.606 ...in6 1.666 1. — 06 1.—N6 1.606 1.6N6 1%N6 no.6 :6 1.606 1.5N6 N66 M6.N 30m 8—. .mV 666- 1.V56 1.6N6 1.506 1.506 1.mN6 1.506 1.mN6 66.6 66.6- w66- 1.666 1.5N6 66.— W66 30—)— 65 .N6 36- 1%N6 1.656 1.6—6 «...—N6 1.666 ...m—6 ......n06 1.606 1.6—6 56.6- ......MN6 1.N56 M66 —0m 600—)— 65 .—v n —6 1.606 15—6 «...—66 1.9.6 1.6— .6 1.566 ......MN6 1.6N6 666 m—6 1.N06 1.6N6 V66 —6.N v00.— 65 .3 6—6 1.NN6 1.506 1&N6 «um—6 ...»m06 1.5—6 1.656 1.6N6 1.36 5—6 1.26 1.506 666 6N6. 6m— A—o< .6m 5m 6m mm var. mm Nm —m 6m 6N wN 5N 6N WN Om S— 1.NN6 1.5N6 1.656 ...N—6 1.606 1.666 m—6- 1.6N6 1.666 .....mN6 1.—N6 1.666 666 —0m mOOS— 65 .—m 18606 1.36 1.NN6 1.666 ....m—6 16—6 66.6 1.6N6 1.6N6 1.666 1.606 1.—N6 666 66.N mOOn— 65 6m 1.606 1.MN6 1.606 1.5—6 1.566 1.5N6 n—6 1.6—6 ......w06 1806 16—6 1806 3.6 —0m 0.— 50¢. .6v 1.—N6 666 1.3.6 1.6—6 1.5N6 1.65.6 m66- N66 1.506 16—6 —66- 1.9.6 —66 m—.m m0 50¢. .wv 66.6 6—6- ...N—6 w66 1.6—6 ...—:6 ...NN6 m66- 96—6 666 666- w66 56.— 6—.m V 3m .56 666 w66- N66 :6 66.6 666 1.Nm .6 m66- —66- —66 V6.6- 566 —6.NN 656: v—uon— 66 ......w06 1.66.6 1.6—6 1.NN6 1.26 M66 666- 1.—06 1.—N6 1.m06 1.m06 1.36 66.6 m—.m VOCA— 8—. .2. 1.wN6 1.6N6 1&66 1.6— .6 1.6N6 1.506 ——6- ...m— .6 1.36 1.606 ...N—6 1. $6 —w6 min 30—)— 8—. .3 1.656 1.606 1.6N6 3mm .6 1.6N6 1.MN6 N66- 1.5N6 1.5N6 1.566 1.MN6 1.NN6 N66 M6.N VOD— 8—- .mv 1.Nv6 1.656 :mN6 1.6N6 1.6—6 m66 56.6- 1.506 1.5N6 1.606 1.666 1.6N6 66.— m6.m v00: 65 .Nv 1.6—6 1.NN6 1.666 1&— 6 1.6N6 :36 :6- 1%— .6 1.N06 1.NN6 1.: .6 1.656 .66 —0m vow—>— 65 .—v 1.606 1.606 1.6N6 1.m56 1.5—6 1.6—6 no.6 1.5N6 1.6—6 1.N06 1%06 1.6N6 V66 —6.N 600n— 65 6v 1.N06 1.36 1.N06 15—6 «...—66 1.6—6 v—6 ...:6 1.—06 1.N06 1.36 1.6N6 666 6N6 em— ..—o< .6m VN mN NN —N 6N 6— w— 5— 6— m— v— m— n—m 2 625.88 N 03...: 50 mOO—Z AN6.V 1.—N6 {...—v.6 1.—06 aim—6 —66- 1.—N6 1.65.6 1.5—6 1.6N6 1.666 1.3.6 ......606 1.Nv6 66.6 —06 65.—n 93 ...-Rd :26 8... Ed :63 :35 :85 :93 :25 :36 :25 ......Ed 8... m3 823.3 :5 ...-NM... £25 .2... :26 :85 :85 :85 .33 :2... an; :33 as 8.... 3.58% 33 :85 :5 8... :3... :2... 3o :3... :35 :de :8... :3 m3. 353...... $3 :3... :3. :NS 85 NS- :25 26 3de :85 8.. aw Sam? - :.? 8.? Ed 8.? 8.? m3 2... Ed 8.2 ”2: 3.0.1.3 36.6 1.5N6 1.606 .3656 15—6 1.m06 1.6—6 —6.6- 66.6 6—6- “MW” 33 ...-Rd :25 ...-E. :2... £3 :23 :3 2% $6....” . . . . . . . . 32 a3 :58 :2o :33 3&3 the N2. 8N 5.9. . . . . . . . v00... 33 £8 .33 ...-So So 8. 8m 2...? . . . . . . 50: a3 1%.. to? ...-So 8o .3 3.: 33 :8... .385 3... .3 3635.3. :3 .13 23 man $583 R an a. M... S 3 a. 3. Q S :. e.. 3 mm mm 2 2.02.9.8 N 29.6 51 66.6 V6.6. 3.2 .6 8.6 3.606 3.66 .6 :6 S6. .. 6 —.6 66.6 666. 3.3 .6 66.6 66.6 6 86 .66 ......N06 3.666 3.: .6 3.606 3.26 66.6 N66. 366 .6 3.6 6 .6 ......N06 3366 6— .6 N66 :6 600.0. 86. .66 3.606 3.606 3.666 .2 —.6 3.606 ......606 666.. 3.66.6 3.666 3.606 3.56 3.66 66.6 66.6 6002 8H .66 3.666 3.506 3.: .6 3. 6 6.6 3.66 .6 ......N06 N66. 3&06 3.606 3.666 3&06 3.6 — .6 666 N66 6006 8H. .66 3.006 .....Nh6 3.6_ .6 3.506 3.26 66.6 6 _ 6.. 3.666 3.606 3806 3.?66 3.36 N64 N66 600< 63 46 3.606 3.606 3.656 «N06 3.606 3.36 :6. 3.26 3.66.6 3.56 .3106 3.666 566 N6 .6 6002 65 .66 3.666 3.616 3.606 3.666 3.6—6 3.606 86 3.506 3.606 3.616 3.606 3&06 66.6 656 6006 65 .66 3.606 3&06 3. ~16 3.606 3. ~66 3&06 ...6 _ .6 3.6— .6 3.616 3.6 6.6 3.606 3.616 6V6 66.6 6m .6044. .66 3.?06 36 3.666 3. —06 3.606 3.666 666 566 3.3.6 3. 6 06 N66 3.616 V66 6 ~ .6 6O 60¢. .56 66.6 56.6. 66.6 6— .6 6_ .6 >66 3. ~ 6.6 V66: 66.6 ~66 66.6. 66.6 hwém 60666 6 6.86 .66 3.606 3.666 3.: .6 3.606 3.26 V6.6 66.6 «...—66 3.606 3.606 3.66.6 3.666 6.6 606 68< SH .66 3.606 3.6.06 3.2.6 ...N— .6 3&06 3.606 3.6- 3.56 3.666 3.606 3.16 3.666 66.6 N16 6002 86. .66 3.2.6 3.606 3.606 3.66 .6 3.606 3.606 66.6 3.606 3.606 3.666 3&06 3.606 66.6 66.6 600m 86.. .66 3.606 3.656 3.606 3.606 3:06 66.6 56.6.. 3.666 3.606 3.606 3.66.6 3.666 _6._ 66.6 600< 65 .N6 VN 6N NN —N 6N 6_ 6— 2 6~ 66 E 6_ D6 2 €03.28 N 2.36 52 3.666 66.6 3.36 6~6 666- 3.6~ .6 ~66 3.666 3.6~.6 3.66 3.606 66.6 3.666 66.6 66.6 6 86 .66 666. 3.656 3.66.6 3.66 3.~5.6 3.6~ .6 3.56.6 3.~6.6 ~66 ~66 666. 3.666 3.6~6 66.6 -.6 600< 85 .66 ~66 3.606 3.556 3.666 3.666 3.656 3.5~.6 3.666 3.666 3.36 ~66 3.606 3.656 66.6 66.6 6002 85 .66 36~6 3.666 3.606 3656 3606 3.6~6 3.666 3.666 3.666 66.6 6 ~6 3.666 3.666 66.6 56.6 6006 85 .66 6 ~6. 3.656 3.6~.6 3.666 3.66 3.666 3.666 3.6~ .6 666. 666. 6 ~ 6. 3.56.6 3.6~ .6 66.~ 66.6 600< 65 .6 666. 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.6 ~6 3.666 3.666 3.6~6 3.666 3.666 3.6~.6 666. 3.606 3.566 56.6 66.6 6002 65 .66 3.5~.6 3.666 3.26 3.666 3.666 3.6~ .6 3.656 3.666 3.666 66.6 6 ~6 3.666 3.666 66.6 65.6 6006 65 .66 6~6 3.606 3.666 3.666 3.666 3.~6.6 3.66.6 3.666 3.606 3.26 ..6~6 3~66 3.666 666 66.6 6m .63.. .66 66.6 ...6~ .6 3.666 3.666 66.6 3.66 .6 3.666 3.666 3.666 3.5~.6 2.6 66.6 3.566 66.6 6~.6 60 .63.. .56 3.66 6~6. ~66. 66.6 -.6- ~66 6~ .6 6~ .6 66.6 3.66.6 3.65.6 6~ 6- ~66 56.66 66.66~ 6686 .66 66.6 3.65.6 3.66.6 3.666 3.656 3.6~ .6 3.66.6 3.606 66.6 ~66 66.6 3.56.6 3.66.6 ~66 6~ .6 600.... 85 .66 66.6 3.606 3.666 3.666 3.666 3.656 3.6~ .6 3. ~66 3.666 :6 ~ .6 666. 3.66.6 3.656 66.6 66.6 600~>~ 8,5 .66 26 3.566 3.66 3.65.6 3.606 3.666 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.666 56.6 ...5~.6 3.66.6 3.666 66.6 66.6 6006 85 .66 ~66- 3.656 3.666 3.666 3.666 3.66.6 3.66 3.606 66.6 666. 666. 3.66.6 3.66.6 ~6.~ 66.6 600< 65 .66 56 66 66 66 66 66 ~6 66 66 66 56 66 66 06 2 €2.28 N 03...: 53 66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 66.6- 3.66.6 66.6 66.6. 3.506 66.6 3.66.6 3.666 66.6 66.6 6 6mm .66 3.66.6 3.666 66.6 66.6. 66.6- 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.65.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 66.6 66.6 6 6.6 600< 8.6. .66 3.66.6 3.66.6 9.66.6 3.66.6 66.6 3.666 3. 6 6.6 3.66 .6 3.66.6 3.55.6 3.66 .6 3.66.6 3.66.6 66.6 66.6 6002 8.6. .66 3.66.6 3.506 66.6 3.6 6.6 56.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.65.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.666 66.6 56.6 6006 8.6. .66 3.66.6 3.66.6 66.6 *6 6.6. 3.66.6- 3.65.6 3.56 .6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.666 66.6 66.6 66.6 600< 65 . 66 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.566 66.6- 3.66.6 3.656 *6 6 .6 3.66.6 3.66.6 ...66 .6 3.66.6 3.666 56.6 66.6 60036 65 .66 3.56.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 66.6 6 6 .6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.66 .6 3.65.6 3.66 .6 3.666 66.6 65.6 6006 65 .66 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.65.6 3.66.6 66.6 66.6 6m A696 .66 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.666 66.6 66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.56.6 66.6 66.6 60 .6696 .56 66.6 3.66.6 66 .6 3.666 3. 66.6 6 6 .6- 66.6- 66 .6 66.6- 66.6 66 .6 6 6 .6 3.6 6 .6 56.66 66.666 6 .6606 .66 3.66.6 3.66.6 66.6 ...6 6.6. 66.6- 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.65.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.666 66.6 66.6 66.6 600< EH. .66 3. 6 6.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.666 66.6 35666 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.65.6 3.66 .6 3.66.6 3.666 66.6 66.6 60062 8.6.. .66 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 66.6 56.6 3366.6 356.6 3.66.6 3.666 3. 6 6.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.566 66.6 66.6 6006 8.6. .66 3.66.6 3.66.6 66.6 ...6 6.6.. 66.6- 3.656 3.66 .6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.66.6 3.666 66.6 66.6 66.6 600< 65 .66 66 66 66 56 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 Om 62 6825.8 N 2%: 54 fl * * i av? ..SVQ .. ..fimnz..§2 83 8.9 ...de :3 3o- :3 3d .86 ...:d .32 86 “NS Ed :3 .86 m2 2% 88.8 :3 Home Home ”So “63 “:3 “£5 86 8.? ”23 “m3 ”m2 ”who ”85 «mo :.m NW6.“ :3 ”m3 ”m2 ”:3 “6.3 ”23 “as 36 ”one “93 “m3 ”8... ”85 £5 3% WW6“ 6.3 ”mg “26 ”:5 ”was ”So .26 ”3.5 H35 ”33 ”m3 ”:6 3o :2 hmwM 83 ”on... ”33 ”mg 85 ”a; ”a3 ”o3 ”Rd H36 “63 «3 Sn meM 68.6 ”8... ”:8 “and 8d “mg “mg ”ed ”mg ”:3 :3 N2 ”wood 63 ”and ”Ed 2d “93 ”:5 ”S... ”as ”as Mad «2 “mm.“ 9.5 ”as :3 “Rd ”93 ”m2 “.3 ”33 ”to can 69.63% 68.6 2.0 o; ”:3 ”mg 86 “one 35 ”2 85.6.3 - 8.? 85 :5 So- So ”.3 was $3.3 £3 ”a... ”2... “a; “£5 :3 2.... WWW. 83 ”NS Home ”:3 35 «3 WW6” 6.3 ”NS. .85 86 gm WWW.“ $3 .52 2: 8a mm”. 8 E 8 S s 8 % mm R on 3 E mm 3 3 am 2 682.668 N 03.6 55 8. 2. 8.- 8.- 8. 2. 8. 8.- 8.- 8.- 22.- 2. 2.2.2 8.8 8258 82.8.8202 .8 2. 8. 8. 8.- 8. £2. 22. 2.28. 8. 8.- 8. 2.- 8.8 2.? 28258 ow... 25 .8 8.- 22.- 8. 2.- 8. 8. 22. 8.- 8. 8. 8.- 2. 8.22 2.22 28268 822 2.25 .8 2.- 2.- 8.- 8.- 2. 8. 8. 8. 2.- 8.- 8. 2.- 8.8 8.? 82:8 002 225 .8 8.- 8. £8. £8. 2. 2.- 2.- 8. 8.- 8. 8.- 8. 8.22 282 88 5m 09.. a2- .8 £2.- 82; 8. 2.2. 2. 8.- 8. 8. 8.- 288. 8.- 2. 8.8 8.22 88 am 82 .5 .8 £2. 8. 2. 2. E8. 8.- 2.2. 8. 8. 2.82. 8. 8. 28 28 8268 mm 8.2 ...-2. .8 :8. :8. 8. 2.- 8. 2.228. 2.2. 8. 2:68. :8.- 2.- 8. 8.22 2.8 82:8 09.. ...-6 .8 :8. :8. 2. 8. 8. 8. £2. 8. 8. 8.- 8.- 2. 8.22 8.... 8268 002 5 .8 :8. :8. 8. 8. 2.2.- 8. 8. :8. 8. 8.- 8. 8.- 8.8 8.... 82.8 8.2 ab .28 8.- 8. 2 .- 8.- 8. 22. 8. 8. 8. 2.- 8.- 8. 2.22 8.8 22268 8588202 .8 8. 8. 2. 8. 8.- :8. 8.- 8. 2. £2.- 8.- 8.- 8.8 8.? 222:8 00.... 2.25 .2 £8.- 8.- 8.- 2.- 8.- 8. 8.- 8. 8. 2. 8.- 282. 8.22 8.8 223.8 002 25 .2 £8.- :2..- 8.- 2.- 8. 22. 8. 8. 8.- 2.2.- 8. 8.- 8.8 8.? 2228 00.2 2.25 .2 2.- 8.- 2. 2. 8. 8.- 2 .- 22. 8. £28. 8. 2. 8.22 8.8 5228 5m 00... ab .2 2.2 .- 8.- 8.- 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8.- 2. 8.- 8. 8.8 8.22 2228 mm 0022 8H .2 8. 2. 8. 8. 22. 8. 22. 8. 8. :8. 8. 8. 8.8 8.22 22 28 mm 00.2 ab .22 :8. :8. :8.- 2.- 8.- £8. £8. 2. 2. : 2 n.- 8.- 8. 28 8.8 222258 00.... as .2 :8. 2. 8.- 2. 8. :8. 8. 8.- 2.- 8.- 2. 28 8.... 222238 002 as .2 8.- 8. 8.- 8. 2. :8. 8.- 8.- 8.- 22.- 8.22 8.... 222268 00.2 as .22 22. £8. 2.- 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8.2 8.8 8.8 mam 03. 22.5 .2 2. 8.- :8.- 2.- :8.- 8. 8. 2.- 8.8 8.8 58 002 .222- .8 8.- .28. :8.- 8.- 8. .28. 8.- 8.8 8.22 28 00.2 .222 .22 63.666. 3.66. 63.666. 66.- 3.66.- 66. 666 66.6 600< 665-6- .5 2828. 2. 8. 8.- 8.- 28 2.2. com: .225 .8 2. 2. 8.- 2.- 8.22 8.... 200.2 225 .m 2.- 2.- 8.- 28 8.8 832.28.... .23 .2. 8.- 2. 8.8 8.22 8222.2... .m 2.2.- 8.8 8.2 cm... .8 8.8 82 82222.80 .2 2 22 2 8 22 6 8 m 2. m 8 2 am .232 n..-262.8.» 6056-2806. .8 286202.200 628 88622260 6862286 28062 . 6 06622-6. 56 8.- 8. 8.- 8. 8.- 8. 8.- 8. 8.- 8. 8. 2. 88 88 8268 002 .65 .8 8.- 8.- 8. 8.- 8. 2. 8. 8. 2. 22.- 8. 8. 2.8 8.? $268 00.2 .65 .8 2. 8. £2. 2. 8.- 8.- 2.- 8. 8.- 2. 8.- 8.- 88 88 88 am 00< as .8 £8.- 2 2.- 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 2. 8. 2:88. 2. 8. 88 88 88 am 002 68 .8 8.- 8.- 8. 8. 2. 8. 8. 8. 8.- 2.88. 8.- 2. 2.8 88 88 mm 00.2 88 .8 2:88. 2:28. 8. 8.- 8. 2:28. £2. 8. 2:28. :8.- 2.- 8. 88 22.8 8268 00< as .8 2:28. 2:28. 2:28. 2.- 8. 8. 2:28. 8.- 8. 8.- 8.- 2. 88 28 8268 002 as .8 $88. 2:28. 22. 8.- 8.- 8.- 8. £8. 8.- 8.- 8. 8.- 88 8.8 $268 00.2 ab .8 22. 8. 2. 8. 22. 2.- 8.- 2.- :8.- 8. 8. 2:28. 88 28 2868 822266266 .8 8. 2. 8. 2.- 8. 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 8. 8.- 2.28. 8.8 8.2 2 88 86688-262 .8 8.- 8. 2.- 8. 22. 2. 8. 2. 8. 8.- 2. 8.- 88 8.? 22.268 00< 65.8 2. 2.- 8.- 8.- 2. 22. 22. £28.- 8. 8.- 8. 2. 88 88 222268 002 .65 .8 8.- 8..- 8.- 2.- 8.- 2. 2. 2. 8. 8.- 8.- 8. 2.8 88- 22268 00.2 .65 .2. 8. 8. 2. 2. 8. 8.- 8. 88. 8. £2. 8.- 8. 88 88 22.8 mm 00< a2- .2- 2.- 8.- 8. 8. 2. 8.- 8. 2 2. 8. £8. 2. 8. 88 88 228 am 002 88 .8 8. 2. 8. 2. 2. 8.- 8. 8. 8.- 2:28. 8. 8. 88 88 22.8 08 00.2 8.2- .2. 2:28. 2:88. 8. 8.- 8.- 88. 2. 2. 2:88. :8.- 2.- 8. 88 28 9.268 00< as .8 8:88. 2:88. 2. 8.- 8. 8. £2. 8. 8.- 8.- 88. £8. 88 28 22.268 002 as .2. 2:88. 2:88. 2 2. 8. 8.- 8.- 8.- 2:88. 8.- 2.- 8. 8.- 88 8.8 22268 00.2 as .2- 8.- 22. 88. 2.- 8. 8. 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- $2. 8.2 8.8 88 82688682 .22. 8. 8. 8.- 22.- 2.- 2. 22. 2:28. 2. 88. 8. 8. 88 22.? 8268 00< .65 82V 2 2. 8.- 8. 2 2.- 2. 8. £2. 8.- 8.- 8. 8. 8. 88 28 8268 002 .65 .8 £8.- 2.- 8.- 8.- 8.- £2. 8. 2. 8.- 22.- 8.- 8. 88 8.? 8268 00.2 .65 .8 8.- 8.- 2. 2. 8.- 8.- 2.- 8. 8. 2. 8.- 8. 88 :8 88 am 00< 8.8 .8 22.- 8.- 8. 8.- 8. 2.- 2. 2. 8. 2.88. 8. 8. 88 88 88 am 0022 88 .8 8. 8.- 2 2. 8. £8. 8.- 2 2. 8.- 8.- 2.28. 2 2. £2. 88 88 88 mm 00.2 as .8 2:28. 2:28. 8.- 22.- 2. 8:88. E2. 8. 2:28. :8.- 2.- 8. 88 2.... 8268 00< as .8 2:28. 2:88. 2. 8.- 8. 2. £2. 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- £2. 88 28 8268 00: a2- .8 2:28. 2:88. 8. 8.- 8.- 8. 8. 2:88. 8. 8.- 8.- 2.- 88 8.8 8268 00.2 as .8 2. 8. 8. 2. 8. 8. 8. 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 2. 88 88 8268 8228-6266 .8 2 22 2 8 8 8 8 m 2. m N 2 06 266: 288268 8 022266 57 08808 .8.“ 8.88080 Row 00888-8209 83 88 830388 088 800.50; 088 080.8»«8 0w80><= 803808 :83 8080 888080 How 298 83 088 .8 888306 88ng .0.—0:808 880. 8080 8888080 80w 80808 88“. 088 .8 88833 8.588% ”83808 808 808 88582.8 80m 00888-809 808 088 90 888308 c.8883 80888080 Bow 208 880» 088 0w80><< 83808 808 9888 82883.5 80» 298 88 .8 888308 8888mm 809808 8808 8080 88880.20 80m 8888 88 no 828308 8888a. 803808 809 988.0 88882.8 Bow 008088.802 tab .8 88308 8383mm 8088080 Bow 298 880388 “.88 0w80><0 8888080 Bow 0088-8802 88888 :08 0w80><¢ .888 8% b88288 no.“ 00880—8 03838 .m-QVQ .. ..SVQ ...... ..bm~fl2..082 2. 8. £8. 8. 2. 2.- 8.- £2.- 2.- z. 8. 2:88. 8.8 8.8 28888888888 8.- 8.- 8.- 8. 8. 8. 8.- 8. 8.- 8. 2. £8.- 28 8.8- 803303. 88.:- 8. 8.- 8.- 2. 8. 2:88. 2.- 2.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 8. 28 8.8 8263002 88.2. 2.- 2.- 8.- 8. 8.- £2. 8. 2. 8. 8.- 8. 8. 28 8.8- 8938 02 88 .8 8. 8. £8. 2. 8. 2.- 8. 8. 8.- 9.88. 8.- 8.- 8.8 8.8 835m 03 8.8 :8.- 8.- 8. 2. 8.- 8. 8. £8. 8. 2:88. 8.- 8. 28 8.8 858 002 5.8 8.- 8.- 2. 2. 2. 8. 8.- 8.- 8.- 2. 2 .- £8. 28 8.8 83 am cum 8.8 .8 58. 8:88. 8. 8.- 8.- 2:80 3. 2. 8:88. :8.- 2.- 8. 8.8 28 805503 88.8 2:88. 2:88. 2:88. 2.- 8. 8. £8. 8.- 8. 8.- 8.- $8. 8.8 28 805300: 5.8 2:88. $.88. £8. 8. 8.- 2.- 8. £2. 8.- 2.- 8.- 8.- 8.8 88 Gozéoomaafimw m0>~3 8. 2. 8. :.- 8. 8.- 8.- 8.- 2.- 8. 8.- 88. 2.8 2.2: 88888.8 8. 8. 8.- 2.- 8.- E. 8. S. 8. 8.- 8. 8. 8.8 8.8- 8E3 02 88 .8 2 : 2 8 w b 8 n v m N _ am 50: 80888 m 28.8 58 2. 2:88. :23. 9.28. 8.- 8. 2. E8.- 8. 8.- :. £2. 88 $8 $3 82 5 .8 8. $.85 8:88. f5. 8. 2. 8.- 2.- 2. 8.- 2. $2. 8.8 8.~ $5 002 5 .8 8. 8. 8. 2. 2:88. 8. 8.- 8.- 2. 8. 8. 8. 8.2 8.2 93888325.; 8.- 8. 8.- 8.- $8.- 8228. 8. £8. 2.- 8.- 8.- 2. 8.8 :8. 63 oo< 25 .8 8.- 8. 8. 8.- 8. 8. p.28. p.28. 2.- :8.- 8.- 2. 2.8 2.8 85 022 25 .3. S.- 8.- :8.- ..38- 8.- 8. 2. 8:82.. 8.- 2. 2.- 8. 8.8 8.8. 85 002 25 .8 £2. 8.- 8.- 8. 2.- 8. 8. 8.- 2382‘. 8. 2:88. 2.- 8.8 :8 88 5m 03 5 .8 $.28. 2.- 2.- 8.- 8.- 8. 8. 8. 82. p.28. 2. 8.- 8.8 8.8 82 am 002 5 .8 9.28. 8.- 2. 8.- 8.- 2.- :. :8.- rtmm. £2. 8:80 8. 8.8 8.8 35 am 092 5 .8 8. $23. $28. 2:88. 8. 8. :.- 2.- 8.- . 2.- 8. :28. 8.8 2.». 85 03 5 .8. 2. :28. 8.28. 2:88. 8.- 8. 8. :8.- 8. 8.- 2. $8. 8.8 $8 $3 022 5 .8 8. $28. $28. 8:88. 8. 8. 2.. Czc 8. 2.- 2. $8. 8.8 82 85025.8 8.- 8. £8. 2. p.28. 8. 8.- 8.- 2. 2.- 8.- 8. 8.8 83 8388238.: 8.- 8.. 2. 2:88. 8:88. 8.- 8. 8. 8. 8. 8.- 2. 2.: 282 333532.528 8. :8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.28. 8. $.80 8.- 2. 8.- 2. 8.8 2.8- $3 09.. 25 .8 8. 2.- 82.- 8.- 8.- 8. :23. $28. 2.. 8.- 8. 8. 8.8 2.8 83 ow: 25 .8 2.- 2.- £8.- 32..- 8.- 2. 8. 8:88. 8.- 8. 2.- 8.- 8.8 8.8. 55 com 25 .8 5.28. :8.- 8. 8. 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 2:5. 2. £8. :8.- 88 8.8 83 am 00¢. 5 .8 $22.. $8.. 82- E8: 2.. 8.- 8. 8. $8. $28. 2. £2.- 88 8.8 85 5m 02: 5 .8 8. 2. 8. 2.- 8.- 2.. :5- 8:qu 7.28. $.22. 8. 28 8.8 83 5m 02 5 .8 p.28. 8.28. 8. 2. 8.- 2.- 2.. ES: 8.- $.28. 8.8 :.m A82 03 5 .8 2:82.. 8. 8.- 8. :8.- 8. 2.. 2. p.28. 8.8 2.8 85 222 5 .8 2. 8. 8.- 82.- 8. 2.. 2. 2:85. 8.8 88 @3002 5.8 8.- 8.- 8. 2. 2.. 2.- 2. 2.: 8.8 :3 858525 .8 8. £2. 8.- 2.- 8.- 2.. 88 8.8. :5 03 25 .2 2:88. 8. 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.8 8.8 :3 002 25 .2 2.. 8.- £2.- 8.- 8.8 8.8- 2265 00.2 25 .2 $2. $28. $8.. 28 8.8 2.3% 02 5.2 $28. 2.- 8.8 8.8 :3 am 002 5 .2 2.- 88 8.8 :3 5m 08 5 .2 8 8 8 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 E 2 5m 2 602258 m 052.5 59 £2. 8. 2:80 8.- 2. 8.- 8. 2.- £2. 8. 8. 2.- 88 88 638282288 8. 8. 8.- 8.- 82.- 2. 8. 8:88. 2.- 8.- 8. 8. 88 88- 63003 25.8 8.- 8. 8. 8.- 8. 8. 8.28. 2.28. 8. 8.- 8.- 8. 88 88 63 002 25 .2 £8.- 8. 8.- 2.- 2. 82. 8:08. 8.28. 8.- 8. 2.- 8. 2.8 88. 8500.2 25.8 2:82.. 2.- 8. 8. 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 8:88. 2. $28. 2.- 88 88 @388 00< 5.8 2:88. 88.. ..8.- 2.- 8.- 8. 8. 8. 8:08. 2:82.. 2. £2.- 28 88 @308 002 5.2. 2:82.. 8.- 8. 8.- 8. 8.- 8. 2.- 8.28. 2. 8.28. 8.- 88 88 83 am 002 5 .8 8. 2:88. 8:88. 8.28. 8. £8. 2.- 2.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 8:5. 88 28 GE 00< 5 .8 2. 8:88. 8:88. 88. 8. 2. 2. £8.- 8.- 8.- 2. £2. 88 2.8 63 002 5 .8 8. 8:88. 8.28. 8:82.. 8. 8. 2.- £2.- 8. 8.- 2. £8. 88 8.8 63 00.. 5 .8 2. 8.- 2. 2. 0.88. 2.- 8. 8.- 2. 8. 8. 8. 2.8 2.82 83855528 8. 8.- 8. 2. 2.- 2. 2. 8.28. 2.- 2.- 8.- 8. 88 88. 6303‘ 25.8 8.- 8. 8. 8.- 2.. 2. 2228. 2. 8.- 8.- 8. 8. 88 88 65 002 25 .8 £8.- 8. 8.- 2.- 8. 2. 2. 8:80 8. 8.- £8.- 8. 2.8 88. 63 00.2 25 .8 2:88. 2.- 2. 8. 2.. 8. 2.. 8.- 2:28. 8. 8:88. 2.- 88 E8 8358 00< 5 .8 :28. $8.. €8- 2.- 8.- 8.- 8. 8.- 8308. 8:28. 2. 2.- 2.8 88 22:88 002 5.8 8:88. 2.- 8. 2.- 8. 8.- 8. 2.- 2:08.. 2:08. 8.22.. 2.- 88 88 638 002588 8. 8:88. 8:88. 8:88. 2. £2. 2.- 2.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.28. 88 :8 GE 00< 5 .8 88. 2:88. 2:28. 2:88. 8. 8. 2. :8.- 8.- 8.- 2. £8. 88 88 63 002 5 .8 8. 2:88. 8:88. 2:88. 8. 8. 8.- $8.. 2. 8. 2. 2. 88 8.8 @263 002 5 .8 2. 8.- 2. 8. 8:88. 8. 8.- 8.- 82. 8. 8. 2.- 88 28 8382822828 2. 8.- 2. 52. 8:28. 2.. 8. 8.- 2. 8. 8. 8. 8.8 8.22 838585528 8. 8.- 8.- 8. £2.- 8. 8. 2. 2.. 8. 8.- 2. 88 88- $3 00< 25 .8 8. 8. 2. 2.. 8. 2.- 82. 2. 2.- 2.- 8. :. 8.8 88 $3 002 25 .2. £8.- 8.- 2.- 2.- 8. 2. 8. 8.22.. 2.- 8.- 38.- 8. 2.8 88- $3 008 25 .2. 8.28. 2.- 8. 8.- 2.- 8.- 8.- 82.- 2328. :. 8:28. :8.- 2-8 88 @502 00< 5.8 8:88. :8.- 2.- 2.- 8.- 8.- 8. 8.- 88. 2:82.. 2:88. 82.. 28 88 $352 002 5.2. 8.28. 8.- 2. 8. 8.- 2.- 8. :8.- 8228. 8:08. 2:08. 8. 88 2.8 $552 002 5.2. 8. 8.28. 8:88. 8:88. 8. 8.28. 8.- 8.- 8.- 2.. 8. 8:28. 88 28 830088 5.2. 8 8 8 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 am 2 282288 m 2258 60 8.88. 8.88. 8.88. 8.- 8. 2.- 8. 2. 8.- 88. 2.- 82. 88 :8 825800125 .8 8.- 2.- 8.- 8.88. 8.88. 8.88.... 8. 8. 8. 8.- 2.- 88; 88 2.8 28:38 002 5 .8 8.- 8.- 88. 8.88. 8.88. 8.88. 88. 2. 8. 8. 88.- 8.- 888 8.8 @2838 002 5 .8 8. 8. 8. 8.88. 8.88. 8:88. 8. 88. 8.- 8.- 2.8.- 2. 88 28 858828888 2.- 8. 2. 2.- 2. 8. 8.88. 2.88. .- 8.- 8. 8. 2.8 8.22 838582028 8.- 8.- 2. 8.- 2. 82. 8.82. 8.88. 8.- 8.- 8.- 88. 88 88- 22:3 00... 25 88 8.- 8.- 8. 8.- 8.- 8.- 2.- 2.- 88. 2. 2. 2.. 88 88 9.5 002 25 .2. 8. 2.- 8. 8. 8. 2.- 8. 8.- 8.- 8.88. 8. 8.- 2.8 88- 2853 00.2 25 .2. 2.- 8. 88.- 8.- 2.- 82.- 8.- 8. 8.88.... 8.88. 888. 2.- 88 88 8.5 am 00... 5 .2. 8.88. 2. 88. 8.- 8. 8.- 8. 8.- 2.- . 8.- 8.- 8.88. 28 88 82 am 002 5 .2. 2. $88. 888. 2.- 8.- 2.- 88.- 8.- 2. 8.- 8. 88. 3.8 88 $38 5m 00.25 .2. 888. 88. 8.882 88. 2. 88. 8.- 2. 2. 8. 8.- 88. 88 2.8 22538 00... 5 .8 8. 2..- 8.- 8.88. 8888.. 8:88. 8. 8. 2. 8.- 2.- 88: 88 2.8 28:38 002 5 .2. 8.- 8.- 2. 88. 8.88. 8.88. 2. 2. 8. 8. 2.- 8.- 88 8.8 $2638 008 5 .2. 8. 8.- 8.- 8.88. 8.82. 8.88. 8. 88. 8.- 2.- :8.- 2. 88.2 8.8 83858822.: 88. 8.- :. 8.- 8. 2. 8.88. 8.88. 8. 8.- 8.- 8.- 888 :8- £263 00... 25 .2. 8. 8.- 2.- 2.- 8. 8.- 88.. 8.- 8.82.. 8. 82. :8.- 888 28 68 002 25 .8 8.- 8. 8. 8.- 8.- 2.. 8. 8.- 8.- 8.888. 2. :.- 88 88- 8265 00.2 25 .8 8. 2. 2.. 8.- 18.- :8.- 8.- 8.- 2. 2. 888. 88. 28 88 8388 0035.2 88. 88. 8.- 8.- 88. 2.- 8. 88. 8. 8.- 8.888. 2.8 88 6.: 0m 00: 5 .2. 8.88. 2.- 2 .- 8.- 8.- 8.- 2. 8. 8. 8. 2.8 88 83 am 002 5 .8 8. 2. 2.- 8.- 8.- 8. 8.- 82.- 88. 88 2.8 82638 00.... 5 .8 8.88. 8.88. 8. 8. 8.- 2.- 88; 2.- 88 2.8 80:30 002 5 .8 8.88. 2. 2. 8. 8.- 2.- 8.- 88 82 8253 00.2 5 .8 8. 88. 8.- 2.- 1.2.- 8. 88 888 838 828228 .8 88. 8.- 88. 2.- 8.- 2.2 888 $5 888828 8M 8. 8.- 8.- 2.. 88 2.? 28:38 00... 25 .8 88. 8.88. 8.- 88 28 A28 002 25 .8 82. 8.- 88 88. A858 002 25 .8 88. 88 88 83 am 00... 5 8m 8 8m 8 8 2 8 8 88 8 2 R 2 am 2 88:58 8 2%.: 61 8.5... 28.3: ..8~uz..§z 8.- 8. £8. 8.- 2:88. 2. 8:88. :88. 2.- 8.- 8.- 2. 8.8 28 33888888 8. 8.- 8. 8.- 2.- 8.- :8- 2.. Aimu. 8. 8:28. 8. 8.8 8.8. 6300.4. 85.: 2. 8.- 8. 8.- 8. 2.- 8. 8. 8. 8:28. £2. 8. 8.8 8.8 6.8082 85.2 2.- 8.- 2.- 8. 8.- 38.- 2. 8. $8. $88. $.82 $2.. 28 8.8- 6302 85.8 $28. $28. $.28. 8.- 8. 8. 8. 2. 8. 8. 8. 8:82.. :8 8.8 $88 oo< 89.8 $3. $.88. 8:88. 2.- E:- E8.- 2.. 8.- 2. 8.- 8. £8. 28 8.8 $88 002 8.28 8:28. 8:28. 2:88. 8. 8. 8.- 8. :. 8.- 2.- 2.- £8. 28 8.8 A233 08 5.8 8.- 2.- 8.- $22.. $28. 2:88. 8. 8. 8. 8.- 2.- :8.- 88 28 GE oo< .5- .8 8.- 8.- 2. 8:88. A288. 8:28. 5:. 2. 8. 8. 2.- 8.- 8.8 88 223002 5.8 2. 8. 8. 8:5. £8. :35. 8. 2. 8. 2.- 2.- 88. 8.8 8.~ 6802 5.8 8. 8.- 2. 2.- 2. £2. $.88. A328. 8.- 8.- 8.- 8. 2.8 8.82 fié8§§€£8 8.- 8. 8.- 2.- 8. 8. 2.- 8.- r81 8. :. 2.- 8.8 8.8- 3303 85.8 8. 8. 2. 8. 8. 2.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.2:. 2. 2.- 8.8 8.8 63002 85.8 8.- 8.- 2.- 8. 8.- 2.- 8. 8.- 8:88. 2. p.88. 8.- 28 8.8- 326352 85.8 8.80 2. 2. 8.- 8. 8. 8.- 8.- 8. 8.- 8.- 8.88. 8.8 :8 685m oo< 858 2. $.88. 2:28. 2.- 2.- $8.- 2.- :.- 8. 8.- 8. 2. 28 8.8 638 002 82% 8 8 8 8 8 8 a 8 8 8 8 8 5m 2 988:8 m 28.5 62 8. 8.- 9.88. 2:88. 2:22.. 2.- 8. 8. 2. 8.- 8. 8. :8 8.8 88 am ow... 5 .8 2.- 8. £2. 8:88. 2:88. 2.- 88.- 2.- 8.- 8.- 2.- $8. 2.8 8.8 838 0025.8 8. £2.- Aimm. 2:88. 2:88. 8. 8. 8.- 88. :8.- 8.- 8.- 8.8 8.8 83 5m 02 5 .8 8.- 8. 2.- :8.- 8.- 8:88. 2:88. 2:88. 8.- :. 2.- :. 8.8 28 893809.. 5.8 8. 8.- 8. 2.- :. 2:88. 2:88. 82. :. 8. 2. 2.- 8.8 2.8 826582 5.8 8.- 2.- 8. 2.- 8. 2:88. 88. 2:88. 82. 8.- 2.- 2.- 8.8 88 82,38 02 5 .8 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- £2. 8.- 2. 88. 8:88. 8.- 8.- 8.- 2.8 2.82 68 858885 .8 £8. £8. 2.- 8. 2.- 2.- 8.- 8. 8. 2:82.. 2. 2. 8.8 8.8- 888... 85.8 2:88. 2. 8.- 8.- 2. 8. 8. 8.- 2.- 8. 8:88. 88. 8.8 8.8 8.8 ow: 85 .8 2. 2:88. 8. 2.- 2.- 2. 8.- 2.- 8.- .88. 8. 2:88. 2.8 8.8- 839808 85.8 8. 8.- 22.88. 8. 2:88. 8.- 8. 8. 8. 8.- 8.- 8. 8.8 8.8 68 5m 00... 5 .8 2.- 8.- 82. 2:88. £8. £8.- 2.- $8.- 8.- 8.- 2.- :. 2.8 88 6.: 5m 82 5 .8 8.- 2.- 2288. 8:88. 2:22.. 8.- 8. 8.- €8. 2.- 8.- 8.- 2.8 8.8 68 5m 002 5 .8 8.- 8. 2.- :8.- 8. 8:88. 2:88. 2:88. 8. 8. 2.- 8. 8.8 :.m 8265 09.. 5 .8 :. 2.- :. 8.- 2. 2:88. 8:88. $.88. 2. 8. 2. :8.- 88 2.8 898350258 2.. $8.- 8. 8.- 8. $8. 2:88. 2:88. 82. 2.- 8.- 62.- 88 88 8.335258 8. 8.- 8. 8.- 2. 2.- 22.88. :. 2:88. 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.8 2.8 88888888 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- $8.. 8.- 2. 58. $.88. 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.8 8.22 8835088.: 2:88. £8. 8.- 8. 8. :8.- 82a 8.- 2.- 2.28. 2. 2. 8.8 8.8- 8303 85.8 $2. 2. 8.- 8. 8.- 2.- £8.- 8.- 2.. rch. 8. 8.8 8.8 5.382 85.8 8.- 2.- 2.- 8.- 8.- 38.- 8. 2:88. 2. 2:88. 8.8 8.8- 8800.— 85.2. 2. 2:88. 2.- 8. 8.- 8.- $2.. 8. 8. 8.8 8.8 88 5m 00... 5 .2. cs: m. :8.- 2.- 8.- 8.- 2.- 8.- 8. 8.8 8.8 83 am 82 5 .2. 8.- 2. 8.- 2. 2.- 8.- 2.- 8.8 8.8 83 am 008 5 .8 8:88. 2:88. 8. 8. 2.- 8.- 8.8 28 A855 09. 5 .8 2:88. 2. 8. 8. £2.- 88 2.8 888 002 5 .2. £8. 8.- 2.- :8.- 88 88 28:8 02 5 .2. 8.- 8.- 8. 8.2 8.8 85 35088 .2. 8. 2:88. 8.8 2.? $803 85.2. 2. 8.8 2.8 88 002 85 .8 8 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 8 2. 8 8 5m 2 282888 n 258 63 S. 0.:me- Aauvow. ALMNR 2.. 8.- 8. 2. 8.- $08. 8.- $02.. 8.8 8.8 83088888 .8 $02.. :. $08. 2.- 8.- 2.- 8.- 2.- 2.- 2.- 2.- $08. 8.8 8.? 80830008. 85.8 $02. $02.. 2. 8.- 2.- 8. 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 2.- $08. 8.8 8.8 830 002 85 .8 2. $02. $08. $08.- 8.- 8- 8. 8.- 2.- 8.- 8.- 82. 8.8 8.? 83.3000 85.8 8.- 8.- 8.- $08. $08. $08. 2.- 2. :. $02. 2. 8.- 8.8 8.8 8388 00< 5.8 8.- 8. 8.- $02. $08. $08. 2.- :8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 2.8 8.8 8388 002 5.8 2.. 8. 8.- $08. $08. $08. 8. 8. 8.- $88. $08. 8.- 2.8 8.8 830 0m 00.2 5 .8 2.- :. 8. 8.- 2.08.- 8.- $08. $08. $08. 2.- 2.- 8.- 8.8 2.8 28:30 00... 5 .8 8.- 8. 8.- 2. $08.- 8. $08. $08. $08. $08. 2. 2.- 8.8 8.8 82630 002 5 .8 8. 8.- 2.- 2. $02.- 2.- $08. $08. $08. :. $02. 8.- 8.8 8.8 83300858 8. 2.- 2.- :. 8.- $.08. 88.. 208. $08. $08. $08. 2.- 2.8 2.82 830850888 $08.. $08. 8.- 8.- 2.. :8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 8. $08. 8.8 88- 830008. 85.8 2. 8.- 8.- 8. 8.- 2.- 8.- 2.- 2.- 2. 28 8.8 830 002 85 .8 2.- 8.- 2.08.- :. 2.- :8- 8. 2.- 2. 2.8 8.8- 826302 85.8 $08. $08. 2.- 2. 8. 8. 8. 8.- 8.8 8.8 83058 00<5.8 $08. $08.- 88.- 2.- 2.. 8.- 8.- 2.8 8.8 830 am 0025 .8 8.- 2. 8.- $02. $08. 8. 2.8 8.8 830 am 008 5 .8 $08. $08. 2.- 8.- 2.- 8.8 :.m 8263 00... 5 .8 $08. $08. 2. 2.- 8.8 2.8 82630 002 5 .8 8. $08. 8.- 8.8 8.8 28:30 008 5 .8 $08. 8.- 8.8 2.8 2.30 88888 .8 2.. 88 8.22 838888888 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0m 2 888:8 m 0850 .8.- 8. .2.- 2. 8.- 2. 8.- $08. 2. $08. .8.- 8.- 8.8 8.8 85888888 $08. $08. 8. 2.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 2.- 8.- 2.- $.08. $08. 8.8 8.8- 288300... 85.: $08. $08. 2. 8. 8.- 8. 8.- 8.- 2.- 8.- 2. $08. 28 8.8 8253 002 85 .2- 2.02. :. $08. 2.. 8.- 2.- 8. 8. 2.- 8. $08. 2. 2.8 8.8- 83830002 85.8 a. 2. 2. 8 2. 2. 2. 2. :. 2. 8 8 am 2 28888 m 0850 64 27m . ..SVS: 62$..an 88.. S- 2.. £2. 8.- 8:. 8.- rt? :. rt? 8d w? Suzi 838-;qu d- rtmm. 2. 8. 2.- 3.- :2.- 3.- 8.- 88.- ”no 85. Gozé oo< a5 .: 935. 8. 8.- 8. 8.- 8.- 2.- 2.. NS 35 Afisé 00: a5 .2 8.- S. 3.- 8. 8. 2.2.- 3.- ”to v3. 833 02 HS .8 psi. A393. 2.- 8. 2. E. :8 m3 A8>§V am 00¢. ah .8 rtwm. 2.- :8.- 2- 8.- «to $5 @393 am 002 5 .3 8. 8. 8.- ES. 3... one @393 am 02 E- .8 A35. 9&3. :.- 85 25 A835 oo< EH .8 £8. £2. and as 6235 82 8H .3 88. 3o 22 @293 02 as .S E 2 S we S 8 8 3 8 2 am 2 ABEES m 298 65 Scale Evaluation Prior to calculating the reliabilities, factor analyses for all of the scales were conducted. All of trait and state goal orientation measures indicated a three-dimensional model of goal orientation measure such that each item loaded on an appropriate factor. Achievement motivation scale indicated two clear factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 and the two factors explained 44% of the total variance. Item 1 to 6 were loaded on the first factor with the eigenvalue equals to 2.86 and item 7 to 10 were loaded on the second factor with the eigenvalue equals to 1.6. The first factor was about an individual’s preference for challenging tasks (e.g., “I would rather work on a task that is difficult rather than easy.”). The second factor was about the extent to which an individual was putting efforts and stayed task-focused (e.g., “I am trying to do my best”). Based on the results, I made two separate scales out of the lO-item achievement motivation measure and named the first factor achievement-challenge and the second factor achievement- efforts. Also, inter-item correlation of the S-item measure of tolerance for ambiguity indicated a low level of item-inter correlations among item 1, 2, and 3, which decreased the reliability of the scale significantly (alpha = .49 with all 5 items). Accordingly, I dropped item 1, 2, and 3 and was able to attain the reliability of .67 with item 4 and 5 only. For the Table 1 and subsequent data analyses, the tolerance for ambiguity scale was calculated out of the item 4 and 5. The important issue of this paper is the emergence processes of team-level goal orientation over time and one way to investigate the emergence processes of team goal orientation is examining the team members’ agreements on team goal orientation over 66 time. Therefore, this study examined the changes in the within-team standard deviations on team goal orientation. Figure 2-4 represent the average within-team standard deviations for team mastery, performance and avoid goal orientation over time for each of the three conditions. As we can see from the graphs, there is no strong indication of difference in the changes in within-team standard deviations across the three conditions. In other words, all three conditions show similar patterns of emergence over time and all three conditions tend to have slight positive changes in the within-team standard deviations. Because each line represents the average value across teams for each condition, it is difficult to illustrate the different patterns of emergence that exist within each individual team. Therefore, to help understanding the emergence processes of team goal orientation, we might need to investigate changes in within-team standard deviations for every single team. This issue will be further discussed in the exploratory analysis in the results section. 67 Figu_re 2. Within-team standard deviation of team Mormance goal orientation over time Stet. Portormonco GO ”thin-tum SD +1 Condition 1 +2 Condition 2 +3 Condition 3 +Total Avenue Figu_re 3. Within-team standard deviation of team learning goal orientation over time State Mastery GO Within- toom SD leo1 W002 le03 Wind WING WING 68 Figm 4. Within-team standard deviation of tm ayoid goal orientation over time Stats AGO Whhln- teem SD Wavo1 Wavoz WIvoa Wavo4 Waves WIVOG 69 In this study, the role discrepancies of teams was manipulated by having teams with leaders (high role discrepancy) versus teams without leaders (low role discrepancy). To check for the manipulation of the leaders, I conducted One-way AN OVA for team member’s perception on their leader’s leadership behaviors. Figure 5 indicates average team members’ perception on person B’s leadership behavior. Although the difference was not statistically significant, compare to condition 1 (No leader condition), as we can see from the table, team members in condition 2 and 3 had greater perception on leadership behaviors of person B (Fa,125)=2.72, p=.07). To fiirther examine the effects of manipulation, only conditionl and condition 2 were compared to each other using between-group t-test. The results indicated that there was a significant differences in leadership perception between conditionl and condition2 (t=-2.20, p<.05). Figge 5. Average leadership ratings on Person B by condition i 7 [ i_, Leadership Perception ’ ‘ in Leadership L Perception I Conditionl- Condition2- Condition3— [ No Leader Leader Leader with Achievement Manipulation 70 Also, the achievement motivation of leaders was manipulated by having leaders read inspiring message versus having leaders read no message. To check for the manipulation of the leaders, I conducted One-way AN OVA for leaders’ achievement motivation for all three conditions. Figure 6 indicates achievement motivation of Person B across the three conditions. For the condition 2 and 3, Person B who sits in the middle was the leader of the teams. In addition, Person Bs in the condition 3 read the inspiring message to about achievement event and they were expected to have greater achievement motivation than Person Bs in condition 1, or 2. As we can see, however, person Bs’ achievement motivation was not greater in condition 3. It indicates that reading the inspiring message did not make a difference in their level of achievement motivation. Instead, it indicates that person B’s achievement motivation was greater when they were in condition 2 or 3 as compare to condition 1 (chnwge=5.31, d.f=2,115, p<.01; F ego-152.53, d.f.=2,115 p=.08). It suggests that becoming a leader increased their achievement motives such that they became ambitious and more likely to seek challenging and difficult tasks. 71 Figge 6. Person Bs’ achievement motives by condition t Leader (Person B) Achievement Motivation Challenge I Efi'ort . l Conditionl- Condition 2- Condition 3- No Leader Leader Leader with Achievement . Manipulation ’ Analysis Overview The data in this study were tested with Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM: Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992), implemented via the mixed procedure in SPSS (See Singer 1998 for details). HLM allows for examination of predictors at the team-, person-, and wave- levels of analysis. In this study, each individual was nested within team. In addition, both team- and individual-level variables were assessed on multiple occasions and they could vary over the course of the study. To accommodate the multilevel structure of the data, I put time-level as the level 1 variable (e.g., multiple assessment of goal orientation), individual-level as the level-2 variable (e.g., trait measure of individual goal orientation), and team-level variables as the level-3 variable (e.g., team performance on task). 72 Hypothesis Testing Hypothesis]. Hypothesis 1 is the main hypothesis of this study that examines the emergent process of team goal orientation. Specifically, based on the hypothesis, I expected that team leaders would influence team members’ perceptions on their team’s goal orientation in a greater degree such that team goal orientation will emerge based on his/her team goal orientation. In other words, this hypothesis proposed that the degree to which person Bs influences team members (person A and person C)’ team goal orientation would be depending on condition (non-leader vs. leader conditions). In the conditions with leaders, team goal orientation of Person A and Person C are subject to Person B (leader)’s team goal orientation. Thus, this hypothesis suggests an interaction between condition and Person B’s team goal orientation on Person As’ and Person Cs’ team goal orientation. To test the interaction effect of condition and influence of Person B on members, a three-level HLM was conducted with time as the level-l variables (within-individual level), Person A and Person C’s team goal orientation as the level-2 (individual-level) dependant variables, Person B’s team goal orientation and condition as the level-3 (team- level) predictor variables. In the step 1 of the analysis, the main effects were entered into the regression such that perceived team goal orientation of Person A and Person C were regressed onto two continuous variables (time and Person B’s goal orientation) and one dummy-coded variable (condition). In the step 2, the interaction effects were entered into the regression equation. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 4-6. For team performance goal orientation, there was a marginally significant interaction effect 73 between Person B’s team performance goal orientation and condition (F(1,352) = 2.48, p =.08). Particularly, when person B was a leader (condition=2- Leader condition), Person B’s team performance goal orientation marginally influenced Person A and Bs’ team performance goal orientation when Person B was leader (7 = .9). However, when Person B was not a leader (Condition 1- Non-leader condition), Person Bs’ team performance goal orientation was not significantly influenced by Person A and C’s team performance goal orientation (7 = -0.03). In addition to the two-way interaction effects that are presented in Table 4-6, I also ran three-way interaction model of condition, Person B, and time for each of the goal orientation. The results of the three-way interaction model indicated no significant three-way interaction effect. 74 Table 4 Interaction effects of leader’s team performance goal orientation a_n_d condition on members’ team mastm goal orientation. y Num DF Den DF F -value p-value $29.1. Time (Level 1) 1.11 l 81 3.45 .07. Person B’s Team Goal -.05 1 878 3.2 .07. Orientation (Level 3) Condition (Level 3) 2 99 4.06 .02. Condition = 1 .15 Condition = 2 .36 $212 Person B’s team goal 2 852 2.48 .08 orientation X Condition = 1 -.02 Condition = 2 .12 Time X 2 75 1.42 .27 Condition = 1 -.02 Condition = 2 -.05 Time X Person B’s team .011 1 178 .99 .32 goal orientation Notes: Num df= numerator degrees of freedom; Den df= denominator degrees of freedom; 7 = average regression weight 75 For team mastery goal orientation, there was a significant interaction effect between Person B’s team performance goal orientation and condition (F9, 956) = 3.11, p <.05) (Table 5). Specifically, when person B was a leader (condition 2 and condition 3), Person B’s team performance goal orientation significantly influenced Person A and Bs’ team performance goal orientation when Person B was leader (y = .14; y = .12). However, when Person B was not a leader (Condition 1- Non-leader condition), Person Bs’ team performance goal orientation was not significantly influenced Person A and B’s team performance goal orientation (7 = 0.02). 76 Table 5. Interaction effects of leader’s team mastng goal orientation and condition on members’ team mastgg; goal orientation. y Num DF Den DF F-value p-value §L€P_1 Time (Level 1) .04 1 245 .194 .660. Person B’s Team Goal .12 1 463 3.012 .083. Orientation (Level 3) Condition (Level 3) 2 696 1.022 .360. Condition = 1 .27 Condition = 2 -. l 3 Step 2 Person B’s team goal 2 956 3.11 P<.05 orientation X Condition = 1 -.15 Condition = 2 .03 Time X 2 111 1.47 .235. Condition = 1 -.05 Condition = 2 -.02 Time X Person B’s team .004 l 258 .083 .774. goal orientation Notes: Nam df= numerator degrees of freedom; Den df= denominator degrees of freedom; 7 = average regression weight For team avoid goal orientation, although the interaction effect between Person B’s team avoid goal orientation and condition was marginally significant (F (2, 1036) = 2.6, p =.08) (Table 6), there was no specific interaction coefficient with a t-value that is close to reaching significance. 77 Table 6. Interaption effects of leader’s team avoid goal ofiemttiowd condition on members’ team avoid goal oriegation. y Num'DF Den DF F -va1ue p-value S_tep_1_ Time (Level 1) .08 1 282 1.29 .256. Person B’s Team Goal .13 1 367 5.28 .022 Orientation (Level 3) Condition (Level 3) 2 653 3.19 .042 Condition = 1 .03 Condition = 2 -.66 Step 2 Person B’s team goal 2 1036 2.60 .075 orientation X Condition = 1 .04 Condition = 2 -. 14 TimeX 2 174 1.84 .161 Condition = 1 -.05 Condition = 2 -.02 Time X Person B’s team .004 1 281 .56 .454 goal orientation Notes: Num df= numerator degrees of freedom; Den df= denominator degrees of freedom; y = average regression weight Thus, hypothesis 1 was partially supported. As predicted, when Person B was the leader of the team, team members’ (Person A and Person C) team mastery goal orientations was significantly influenced by team mastery goal orientation of Person B. The emergent process of team goal orientation, therefore, depends on role importance of the team such that leaders influence others members’ team goal orientation in a greater degree. Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2 proposed that changes in individuals’ goal orientation will depend on heterogeneity of their trait goal orientation. To test this hypothesis, I first calculated the heterogeneity team members’ trait goal orientations by getting standard deviation for team members’ trait goal orientation. Then, using the HLM analysis, I 78 predicted individual goal orientation from time, heterogeneity, and the interaction between the time and the heterogeneity. I expected a significant interaction effect between time and heterogeneity on individuals’ goal orientation such that it indicates the rate of changes for individual goal orientations depend on the heterogeneities of team members’ goal orientations. I ran three sets of HLM analyses each predicting individual’s perception toward team’s mastery, performance, and avoid goal orientation. Only one model predicting team avoid goal orientation had an significant interaction effect (Table 7). As indicated by the graph, as I predicted, individuals in teams with high heterogeneity in trait avoid goal orientation experienced greater degree of change over time (Figure 7) Therefore, hypothesis 2 was partially supported. 79 Table 7. Effects of time and within-team standard deviation in members’ trait goal orientation on their perceived team goal orientation. Y Num df Den df F-value p-value Team p_erformance goal orientation Step 1 Time .01 1 122 1.95 .17 SD in Trait PGO -.O8 1 118 .67 .42 §t_ev_2_ Time x SD in Trait PGO .00 1 125 .07 .79 Team masteg goal orientation M Time .03 1 124 8.80 .00 SD in Trait MGO -.04 1 116 .10 .75 .S_t§p_2_ Time X SD in Trait MGO -.05 1 124 2.93 .09 Team avoid goal orientation Step 1 Time .02 l l 12 3.92 .05 SD in Trait AGO -.22 l 126 4.39 .04 Stap 2 ' Time X SD in Trait AGO .05 l 111 4.99 .03 Notes: Num df= numerator degrees of freedom; Den df= denominator degrees of freedom; 7 = average regression weight 80 Figage 7. Interaction effect of time and trait avoid goal orientation heterogeneity on individuals’ percaption on team avoid goal orientation. i 5 P or 1 l 9° 01 i —o— Low AGO Heterogeneity — -a— — High AGO Heterogeneity N or Team Avoid Goal Orientation (to q: o 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l o N A 0| 1 Wave1 Wave6 Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 3a proposed the perceived differences in team members’ goal orientation will be related to their satisfactions. To represent the perceived differences of goal orientation, I calculated the difference scores between team members’ individual goal orientation and their team goal orientation across six waves. Using HLM analysis, individuals’ satisfactions were predicted from their perceived heterogeneity of goal orientation. Also, I put a main effect and an interaction effect of time to examine if the relationship between satisfaction and heterogeneity differs by time. There was no significant effect found in this analysis, therefore, the hypothesis 3a was not supported (Table 8). 81 Table 8. Perceived heterogeneity between individual and team goal orientation as predictors of satisfaction F Num df Den df F -value p-value Satisfaction m Time .30 l 147 83.52 .00 Difference in PGO -. 1 8 1 374 3.84 .05 Stap2 Time X Difference in PGO .05 l l 16 .32 .57 Satisfaction $21 Time .28 l 143 71.20 .00 Difference in MGO -.13 l 386 .95 .33 StapZ Time X Difference in MGO -.11 l 198 .78 .38 Satisfaction §t_