Teams That Prioritize Either Learning or Performance Perform Better

In today’s fast-moving work environment, organizations expect teams to do everything at once: perform flawlessly in the moment and constantly improve for the future. But is it wise to ask teams to chase both performance and learning outcomes at the same time? Our research says no. We studied 109 teams in a large North American mortgage company to better understand how dual-goal orientations—striving to learn versus striving to perform—affect teams’ sense of purpose and overall performance. What we found may surprise you: Teams that tried to maximize both learning and performance simultaneously were the least effective. By contrast, teams that leaned into either a learning or performance orientation while de-emphasizing the other reported a stronger sense of meaning in their work and ultimately achieved better results. The Hidden Cost of Mixed Messages Performance management practices and systems often encourage teams to “innovate and deliver,” pushing them toward high standards while asking them to be flexible and experimental. But expecting teams to emphasize both learning and performance at the same time in this way dilutes their focus. Employees can end up confused: Are we here to grow and try new things, or to hit targets and avoid mistakes? Consider an IT support team at the mortgage firm. Leadership encouraged them to “push boundaries” and experiment freely with innovative technology solutions, signaling strong support for learning and innovation. The team periodically started exploring promising upgrades and advanced system improvements, but in practice they stopped short of fully implementing these innovations, often leaving valuable ideas half-developed. This occurred because their performance was also evaluated on immediate system reliability, uptime, and rapid incident response. Since both innovation (learning) and reliability (performance) were formally assessed, team members felt uncertain about their priorities. Day-to-day, hesitation became common: IT specialists quickly addressed straightforward, easily resolvable issues—low-hanging fruit that clearly satisfied short-term performance metrics—but avoided tackling more complicated system-level problems. Though these trickier issues demanded deeper analysis and were crucial for long-term stability and innovation, team members worried about opening a can of worms, fearing potential setbacks in their performance evaluations. This confusion about priorities led directly to frustration, diminished morale, and slower progress on essential system improvements. This ambiguity erodes a critical ingredient for high-functioning teams: task meaningfulness. When team members don’t clearly understand what they’re aiming for, it becomes harder to see how their work matters. And as our data show, that sense of meaningfulness is a key predictor of whether a team will actually perform well: In our study, teams with a clearer sense of purpose were rated significantly higher by senior managers on execution, quality of work, and overall contribution to organizational goals. Purpose Fuels Performance So what does help? Teams that prioritized one goal orientation—either learning or performance—while keeping the other in the background felt their work was more meaningful. That clarity led to higher energy, stronger engagement, and superior outcomes. Whether the focus was on mastering new skills or beating internal benchmarks, what mattered was having a clear and consistent purpose. At the mortgage firm, a customer service division facing persistent quality issues decided to stop speaking in generalities about process improvements and picked two concrete goals: respond quickly and resolve issues on the first contact. Leaders set clear weekly targets for those two goals, posted simple team dashboards, and tied coaching and bonuses to them. The resulting clarity energized employees, boosting morale and sharply improving customer ratings. By clearly choosing one focus, the team regained a clear sense of purpose, which translated directly into stronger performance. Think of it like playing in harmony: You can’t have instruments tuned to two different keys. How to Keep Teams Focused and Engaged For leaders, the message is simple: Don’t overload your teams with conflicting signals. When setting goals or designing incentives, resist the urge to expect them to “do it all.” Instead: Choose a dominant orientation—then commit to it. Every team needs a clear compass. If your team is tasked with innovating new products, navigating uncertainty, or venturing into uncharted territory, adopt a learning-goal orientation. Set ambitious, skill-building targets and reward experimentation, even when it leads to short-term failure. On the other hand, if your team’s role is to deliver results efficiently, meet compliance targets, or maintain quality under pressure, embrace a performance-goal orientation. Establish specific output metrics and recognize precision, consistency, and excellence. Avoid the temptation to blend both orientations equally; doing so may obscure the team’s primary mission and lead to confusion. Tailor how you communicate, coach, and reward. Once you’ve set the dominant orientation, align your everyday leadership behaviors accordingly. In learning-focused teams, celebrate insights gained from mistakes, ask reflective questions in meetings, and reward creative thinking, even when it doesn’t lead to immediate wins. In performance-focused teams, emphasize goal tracking, praise efficiency, and give regular, metrics-based feedback. Incentive structures should also match the orientation: bonus schemes for learning teams might reward process improvements or cross-training, whereas for performance teams, they might hinge on hitting specific KPIs. Consistency in tone, recognition, and coaching reinforces the team’s shared sense of purpose. Avoid sending mixed signals. Telling a team to “take risks” while docking points for falling short sends the wrong message. If your evaluation system prioritizes output and error-free execution, then talking about experimentation or encouraging bold ideas without backing them institutionally creates dissonance. Team members won’t know which behavior is truly expected, and this ambiguity undermines both psychological safety and task focus. Make sure your messaging, evaluation criteria, and performance consequences all point in the same direction. Aligning talk and practice isn’t just good management—it’s essential for sustaining motivation and performance. . . . Trying to chase two hares at once often results in catching neither. Teams need clarity. When they’re given a focused direction—either to master or to deliver—they’re more likely to find meaning in their work, collaborate effectively, and achieve better results. Before your next strategy meeting or performance review cycle, ask: What kind of team are we trying to build? Then pick a lane. Your team’s performance may depend on it.

Teams That Prioritize Either Learning or Performance Perform Better

Summary.

Partner Center