^K^^orrtf^
^
tiUZO
.M414
no.
^7
CENTER FOR COMPUTATIONAL RESEARCH
ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
IN
EFFECTIVE GOALS FOR COMPLEX TASKS:
TOWARDS A BROADER CONCEPTUALIZATIOJ
OF SPECIFIC-DIFFICULT GOALS
Susan F. Schiro
October, 1989
WP
#:
3096-89-BPS
SLOAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT
MASSACHUSETTS
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139
ALFRED
P.
EFFECTIVE GOALS FOR COMPLEX TASKS:
TOWARDS A BROADER CONCEPTUALIZATION
OF SPECIFIC-DIFFICULT GOALS
Susan F. Schiro
October, 1989
WP
#:
3096-89-BPS
^
—•
.
EFFECTIVE GOALS FOR COMPLEX TASKS:
TOWARDS A BROADER CONCEPTUALIZATION OF SPECIFIC-DIFFICULT GOALS
Susan
F.
Schiro
A key finding of goal theory is that specific-difficult goals, i.e.,
quantitative goals which are challenging to the individual, lead to improved
performance.
However, recent research suggests that these goals are
ineffective for highly complex tasks such as managerial jobs.
This paper
argues that if a broader conceptualization of specific-difficult goals is adopted,
then specific-difficult goals will be seen to improve the performance of complex
tasks.
Difficult quantitative goals improve task performance by providing a
precise definition of the desired outcome; the individual therefore considers
only a few strategies for dealing with the situation.
When the assigned task
is of low to moderate complexity, this leads to improved performance.
On a
highly complex task, however, such a goal leads to the selection of an inferior
action plan and, therefore, to reduced performance.
A highly complex task requires the individual to consider the relative
importance of various goals and to choose the best strategy for achieving the
Consequently, an effective goal for such tasks will
selected goal or goals.
both provide a precise definition of the desired outcome and encourage the
individual to consider a broad variety of action plans.
This paper proposes that a goal system is an effective type of specifichighly complex task.
A goal system is a goal hierarchy
which includes both a superordinate goal (or goals) and subgoals. The
superordinate goal defines the individual's primary objective(s)
Subgoals may
specify particularly desirable features of the superordinate goal, identify several
steps towards the superordinate goal as separate goals, or describe other
desirable but less critical goals.
Thus, subgoals increase the specificity with
which the superordinate goal is defined thereby increasing the individual's goal
difficult goal for a
.
comprehension
The superordinate goal identifies non-optional goals while subgoals are
presented as optional objectives.
Because the subgoals are presented as
optional goals, the individual is more likely to consider a broad variety of
action plans.
The superordinate goal then serves as a template against which
the possible strategies can be evaluated.
A research project which measures the relative effectiveness of
quantitative and non-quantitative goal systems versus simple
quantitative goals and do-your-best goals in both a simple and a complex
version of a managerial task is proposed.
The project also includes
measurement of the key cognitive processes which determine goal effectiveness.
No previous study has included multiple types of goals, two levels of
complexity, and the key cognitive steps in the process by which goals influence
This study therefore provides a more complete test of a model of
performance.
the process by which goals influence performance than is currently available.
Thesis Committee: Deborah Ancona
John Carroll (chair)
Robert Wood
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Design of the Paper and Proposed Research
Contribution of the Papaer
Literature
Task Complexity and the Effectiveness
Goal Systems
of Specific-Difficult Goals
4
4
5
6
7
7
11
Hypothesized Relationships among Task Complexity, Goal Type, and the
Steps by Which Goals Influence Performance
12
Scope of the Model
13
Step 1 Goal Comprehension
14
Step 2: Goal Acceptance
17
19
Step 3 Action or Strategy Planning
Outcome: Performance
22
Methodology: Experimental Design
Criteria for Selection of Experiment
Description of Proposed Experiment
Suitability of the Simulation
Goals
Subjects
Manipulation Checks
Tests of Hypotheses
Hypothesis #1
Hypothesis #2
Hypotheses
Hypotheses
Hypothesis
Hypothesis
Hypothesis
Hypothesis
#3a and #3b
#4a and #4b
#5
#6
#7
#8
Contribution of the Research
Theoretical
Practical
23
23
24
25
27
28
28
29
29
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
34
35
37
References
Appendix
1
-
2
The
Effect of Quantitative Specificity on the Performance
Complex Tasks
of
-
Proposed Questions for Measuring Type of Action Plan
44
45
Tables
1
Studies Measuring Two or more Steps
Goals Influence Performance or Including
Planning
2
-
in
the Process by which
of Action
Two Measures
48
Studies Measuring the Effect of Goals on Tasks of Varying
Complexity
50
Figures
- A Simplified Model of the Key Cognitive Processes by which
1
Goals Influence Performance
52
Hypothesized Strength of Relationships among Task Complexity,
Goal Type, and Steps by which Goals Influence Performance
53
2
3
-
Research Design
54
Introduction
Statement of the Problem
A key finding
of goal theory
is
that specific-difficult goals,
i.e.,
quantitative goals which are challenging to the individual (Locke,
1981), are more effective than vague do-your-best goals in improving
& Latham,
performance; this has been confirmed by research
settings (Latham & Lee,
However,
Shaw, Saari,
a
1985;
in
both laboratory and field
Mento, Steel, & Karren, 1987; Tubbs, 1986).
recent meta-analysis demonstrates that specific-difficult goals are
decreasingly effective
although usually
still
in
improving performance as task complexity increases,
significant (Wood,
Mento,
& Locke,
1987).
Additionally,
for some highly complex heuristic tasks specific-difficult goals even lead to
poorer performance than
a
non-specific do-your-best goal (Earley, Connolly,
Ekegren, 1989; Huber, 1985).
This suggests that specific-difficult goals may be
ineffective or counterproductive for managerial tasks.
have
lost a
theory
is
&
If
that
true,
is
then we
potentially valuable tool for improving managerial performance; goal
widely recognized as one of the most useful theories
organizational
in
behavior (Miner, 1984; Pinder, 1984; Schneider, 1985; Staw, 1984).
This paper argues that specific-difficult goals are relevant to improving
The
the performance of complex tasks, even heuristic managerial tasks.
problem
is
the operationalization of specific-difficult goals, not the theory.
Goal theory virtually always operationalizes specific-difficult goals as
quantitative goals.
This has happened because most of the research on goals
has been done with simple tasks (Huber,
1985;
Locke
only moderate complexity (Locke Chah, Harrison,
to
be quantitative to be difficult or specific.
1981) or tasks of
& Lustgarten,
quantitative goals are highly effective for such tasks.
have
et al.
1989);
However, goals do not
Goal difficulty
is
defined as
the extent to which the goal
challenging to the individual (Locke et
is
or the probability that the individual
1984).
Goal specificity
desired outcome
is
will
1981)
achieve the goal (Naylor & Mgen,
defined as the explicitness or clarity with which the
is
defined (Locke & Latham, forthcoming; Locke et
Thus,
Naylor & llgen, 1984).
al.
it
is
al.
1989;
legitimate to use an alternative
operationalization of specific-difficult goals.
Naylor and llgen (1984) propose that there are two types of goal
specificity.
One type
of goal specificity
is
quantitative specificity (i.e., the
degree of quantitative precision with which the
desired outcome
is
level of
performance
of the
defined); however, another type of goal specificity
is
content or outcome specificity (i.e., the explicitness with which the content of
the desired outcome
publishable papers
The
defined).
is
a
year
is
For example, the goal of writing two
specific with regard to both quantity
goal of writing publishable papers
not specific regarding quantity.
contributions a year
is
The
is
and content.
specific with regard to content but
goal of
making two
is
scientific
specific with regard to quantity but
regarding the content of the goal (Naylor & Mgen, 1984).
is
not specific
Although there
is
a
substantial body of research on the effect of quantitative specificity on task
performance, there
is
little
consideration of the effect of content specificity on
performance (exceptions include Campbell & Gingrich, 1986; Earley 1985, 1986;
Erez
5-
Arad, 1986).
This paper therefore discusses how content specificity
influences the performance of simple versus complex tasks.
Design of the Paper and Proposed Research
The paper does
difficult goals.
One
this
by considering two operationalizations
operationalization
is
called a simple goal;
of specific-
this
includes both
the traditional type of quantitative specific-difficult goal and vague do-yourbest goals (henceforth these
will
be referred
to as
simple quantitative goals and
The second
respectively).
simple non-quantitative goals,
operationalization
goal system which includes a superordinate goal plus subgoals (Bandura,
The paper supports the
selection of this operationalization
characterisitics of effective goals for complex tasks and
is
a
1988).
by discussing the
by reviewing current
theory and research on the cognitive processes by which specific-difficult goals
The paper hypothesizes that simple
influence performance.
superior performance on
a
better performance on
complex task.
a
goals
simple task, but that goal systems
will
will
lead to
lead to
The paper supports these hypotheses
with hypotheses about the effect of simple goals versus goal systems on each of
the steps'
in
the process by which goals influence performance.
The paper then proposes
a
research project to measure the effect of the
two types of goals on overall performance and on the steps
in
the process by
which goals influence performance for both simple and complex tasks.
the approach
is
Thus,
consistent with the dictum that:
Any theory that describes a process responsible for a given effect (be
motivational or cognitive) must attempt to demonstrate this intervening
process in addition to the effect... (Bavelas & Lee, 1978, p. 226).
it
Contribution of the Paper
This project
will
represent
a
particularly valuable contribution to the
literature since research on the process
Locke et
Porter,
al.
1987;
1981;
Wood
Mento
et al.
et al.
1987;
is
a
Riedel Nebeker,
Wood
& Locke,
in
& Cooper,
forthcoming).
1988;
Steers &
Although many
the process by which goals
handful of studies have considered two steps (see
Table #1), and no study has attempted to measure
process.
(Bandura & Cervone, 1983;
1987;
researchers have studied one of the steps
influence performance, only
limited
all
of the steps in the
Additionally, few studies have included tasks at more than one level
These steps are generally described as goal comprehension, goal
acceptance, and action or strategy planning (Locke, 1968; Locke et al. 1981;
Wood and Locke, forthcoming).
'
of complexity (for exceptions see Table #2).
Furthermore, although this paper
is
primarily concerned with the effect of
content specificity on task performance, the study design includes both
quantitative traditional specific-difficult goals and non-quantitative do-your-best
goals.
These are necessary
and that the complex task
is
to provide evidence that the simple task
is
simple
Since these are included, the study also
complex.
includes both quantitative and non-quantitative versions of a goal system.
study therefore also contributes to our knowledge of the way
in
The
which
quantitative specificity influences task performance.
This paper
difficult goals.
is
intended to lead to
broader conceptualization of specific-
a
The proposed research
increase our knowledge of the
will
relative effectiveness of two types of specific-difficult goals on the
performance
test of
of simple
one model
and complex tasks.
of the process
It
will
also provide a
more complete
by which goals influence performance than
is
currently available.
Literature
This section discusses the key cognitive processes by which simple
quantitative goals lead to improved performance of tasks of low to moderate
complexity.
goals,
The
section then discusses
why
are less effective for complex tasks.
these processes, and therefore such
The
section argues that a goal
system which includes both superordinate goals and relevant subgoals (i.e.,
subgoals which relate the superordinate goal to the source of task complexity)
will
lead to
improved performance of complex tasks.
Task Complexity and the Effectiveness of Simple Specific Goals
By
definition,
Such goals provide
(Naylor & llgen,
simple specific goals are goals with high content specificity.
precise definition of the content of the desired outcome
a
1984) thus focussing the individual's attention on a narrow
range of possible actions (Wood and Locke, forthcoming).
improved performance of simple tasks.
For example,
if
a
This leads to
widget maker has
been successfully meeting the goal of producing 12 widgets per hour, that
individual
the past,
is
likely to continue using the
someone were
if
approach which has been successful
to ask the widget
maker why he/she always used
the same approach, the widget maker might shrug and say:
don't fix it."
decision.
would
If
in
the short run at least, the widget maker
the widget maker were to look for
suffer because the time used
initially
in
in
a
"If
is
it
ain't
broke,
making the correct
better approach, performance
experimenting with different
approaches would be unavailable for making widgets.
Performance
complex task, however,
of a
consideration of action plan possibilities.
is
improved by
Task complexity
is
a
broader
defined by the
extent to which the task possesses one or more of the following attributes:
multiple components (including acts and information cues),
needs, and dynamic or uncertain conditions (Wood,
the task increases,
is
it
between an action and
complex task
is
1986).
high coordination
As the complexity of
decreasingly possible to predict the relationship
its
consequence.
Therefore, the performance of
a
highly
improved by having an individual with relevant specialized
knowledge decide on an appropriate action plan (Carroll & Tosi, 1973; Perrow,
1970;
Wood
or engages
& Locke,
in
forthcoming).
When the
individual considers
many options
extensive planning, the quality of these choices improves (Janis
and Mann, 1977).
These points are supported by
a
study done by Hackman, Brousseau, and
Weiss (1976) concerning the effect of time spent planning on both simple and
complex tasks.
value of
all
condition,
this
experiment performance was measured by the dollar
components assembled by
all
subjects
a
group
of students.
In the simple
knew what components the group was expected
to
Thus, each subject could independently decide what components
assemble.
produce
In
in
order to maximize the dollar value of the group's production.
high complexity condition,
the
Production of the most profitable
The experimenters found
components therefore required coordination.
however, time spent planning improved performance.
that on
On the complex
the simple task time spent planning hurt performance.
complex tasks.
in
however, each subject knew only some of the
components which were requested.
different types of goals
to
task,
This suggests that
lead to superior performance on simple versus
will
Specifically,
goals which lead to reduced planning should be
associated with superior performance on simple tasks; on complex tasks,
however, goals which lead
to
increased planning should be associated with
improved performance.
In
the example of the widget maker
unlikely to lead the widget
engage
planning.
in
maker
(This point
we saw that
to look for a
is
discussed
a
simple specific goal
new production method or
in
greater detail below.)
is
to
Simple
specific goals lead to a reduced consideration of options and therefore decrease
the individual's ability to make good choices
theory therefore needs to identify
situations
a
in
complex situations'^.
Goal
different type of goal for complex
.
Goal theory makes two different suggestions of what constitutes an
appropriate goal for
a
complex task.
Sometimes, goal theorists suggest that
Because this paper is concerned with the effect of content specificity
on the performance of complex tasks, it does not discuss the effect of
quantitative specificity.
In the interest of completeness, however, a brief
discussion is included in Appendix #1.
vague goals may lead
performance of complex tasks than specific
to better
challenging goals:
Under [some circumstances] (e.g., managing in an uncertain environment)
vague goals could conceivably be more effective than specific goals in that
the manager would have more flexibility in responding to environmental
contingencies (Locke et
1989,
al.
p.
272).
However, while vague goals give the individual
the desired outcome.
This may create problems because different individuals
may have different understandings
may
in
his or her
of the organization's goal
(or goals); this
and inefficiency as each individual pursues the
lead to poor coordination
project which
they do not define
flexibility,
judgment
is
of greatest importance.
may perform one task while other tasks are
left
Several people
undone.
Goal theorists also suggest that multiple quantitative goals lead to
improved performance
some situations.
in
The effectiveness
of such goals has
been demonstrated for proofreading tasks (ligen and Moore, 1987), for
salesclerks (Ivancevich,
1977;
Kim,
1976;
1984),
highly skilled technicians (ivancevich
Ivancevich and McMahon, 1977a, 1977b, 1977c,
Roth, Stuebing, and Ekeberg,
(Pritchard et
al.
1988),
Pritchard, Jones,
1982;
and materiel handling and storage units
Multiple goals lead to improved performance of such
1988).
tasks because they increase the individual's awareness of
a
number
of specific
objectives and suggest action plans which are appropriate for each objective.
However, these jobs are
less
Managers frequently need
to
complex than middle
level
managerial jobs.
choose between two different objectives where
achieving one objective precludes achievement of the other objective.
goals
may
Multiple
indicate the various tasks which are to be performed; they do not,
however, provide information about the relative importance of the various tasks.
Therefore, what
is
needed
is
a
type of goal which specifically defines one
or more desired outcomes and indicates their relative importance.
should stimulate the creation of
a
new
action plan
10
This goal
by increasing the individual's
awareness of his/her freedom
to select a
course of action and contributing to
the individual's ability to consider multiple factors and objectives
in
creating an
appropriate action plan"^.
Goal Systems
A
it
goal system can lead to improved performance of complex tasks because
defines the desired outcome while simultaneously identifying areas within
A
which the individual has discretion.
goal system includes one or more
The superordinate
superordinate or overarching goals and multiple subgoals.
goal defines the individual's primary objective(s)
.
Subgoals may specify
particularly desirable features of the superordinate goal,
identify several steps
towards the superordinate goal as separate goals, or describe other desirable but
For example, the superordinate goal may be to clean the
less critical goals.
house and subgoals may include dusting and making beds.
In
this
example the
subgoals can be thought of either as means by which the superordinate goal
accomplished or as additional specification as to the definition of
a clean
is
house.
Alternatively, the superordinate goal might be to clean the house and an
additional but unrelated subgoal might be to rearrange a vase of flowers.
Thus, subgoals can help
to clarify the
superordinate goal and to identify the
relative importance of other goals.
The presence
does not necessarily create
of multiple goals
Multiple goals become
a
goal system only
superordinate goal and, therefore,
a
when there
goal hierarchy.
nature of the goal system which enables
it
is
a clearly
It
is
a
goal system.
identifiable
the hierarchical
simultaneously to provide clear
specification of the desired outcome and flexibility regarding selection of the
means by which that outcome
Ideally,
such
a
is
to
be achieved.
The superordinate
goal
is
goal will do this without leading to excessive arousal.
11
a
.
non-optional goal which identifies the individual's primary objective(s)
Subgoals identify
less critical
but desirable outcomes; these represent the
individual's area of discretion.
A
goal system
particularly effective
is
when the subgoals
relate the
superordinate goal to the factors which make the situation complex.
This
focusses the individual's attention on the source of task complexity thereby
leading to an improved choice of actions.
traffic controller
availability,
is
For example, the job of an air
complex because of component complexity (e.g., fuel
multiple runways,
and landing order), coordinative complexity (e.g.,
coordinating the plane's landing with that of other planes which are advised by
other controllers), and dynamic complexity (e.g., wind rate, wind direction, and
the plane's position
the holding pattern)
in
controller's superordinate goal
will
is
a
Clearly, the
the prevention of accidents.
increase the controller's awareness of
leading to
(Wood, 1986).
all
Ideally,
subgoals
three types of complexity, thereby
broader consideration of options and, consequently,
to
improved
performance.
A superordinate
goal can be an individual goal or an organizational goal.
When the superordinate
goal
is
an individual goal, then the goal system
is
a
hierarchical individual goal system as described by Lord & Kernan (1987) and
Newell
E,
Simon (1972).
and individual
level
Goal systems with superordinate organizational goals
subgoals have been described by Carroll & Tosi (1973),
Cyert & March (1963), Drucker (1989), March t Simon (1958), and Quinn (1980).
Both kinds of goal systems are thought to lead to improved performance.
The
next sertjon discusses some of the processes by which goal systems improve the
performance
of
complex tasks.
Hvpothesized Relationships among Task Complexity, Goal Type,
12
and the Steps by which Goals Influence Performance
This section discusses
performance.
It
a
model of the major steps by which goals influence
argues that goal systems lead to improved performance of
Bandura
complex tasks because they combine superordinate goals with subgoais.
states that superordinate goals "...
give purpose to an activity and serve
a
general directive function, but subgoais are better suited to serve as the
proximal determinants of specific choice of activities and how much effort
is
This section describes how these two functions
devoted to them" (1988, p. 50).
improve the goal comprehension and action planning of complex tasks.
Conversely, the section argues that goal systems provide superfluous
information which
tasks;
may hinder
goal comprehension
and action planning for simple
simple quantitative goals are hypothesized to lead to improved
performance of simple tasks.
Scope of the Model
The model
goals,
is
concerned with the process by which externally imposed
such as those assigned by employers to employees, influence the
initial
understanding and, therefore, the performance of cognitive tasks'' by
experienced employees.
It
is
a
highly simplified model (as shown below), which
includes only the key cognitive processes by which specific goals influence the
performance
of cognitive tasks.
[insert Figure
The model
in
Figure
1
1
about here]
omits the effect of goals on effort.
appropriate choice because effort
is
This
is
considered to be of less importance
an
in
Wood et al. (1987) state that it is possible that there are significant
differences in the process by which goals influence the performance of
cognitive versus psychomotor tasks.
13
influencing the performance of cognitive as compared with psychomotor tasks
(Wood and Locke, forthcoming)
This
.
is
a
limited model intended to facilitate a
discussion of the process by which goals influence the performance of cognitive
tasks.
The model
designed to clarify the
is
initial
steps by which goals influence
performance.
It
therefore assumes that each step of the process precedes the
next step and
it
omits
all
feedback loops.
These simplifying assumptions do not
interfere with our ability to consider the influence of detailed goals on the four
The model
steps.
is
not appropriate,
however, for considering the way that
Locke
goals influence the individual's persistence (Locke & Latham, forthcoming;
assist the individual
1981),
et al.
1982), or serve as guides
in
in
refining an action plan (Campion & Lord,
verifying the appropriateness of the action plan
(Bandura, 1986).
The model
excludes
all
offers the benefits of being easily
interactions,
comprehended because
it
processes, and variables which are not directly
relevant to considering the effect of goal systems versus simple goals on the
performance of cognitive tasks.
Thus, the model
is
parsimonious.
Pfeffer
(1982) argues that parsimonious theories are preferable to complex theories:
The criterion of parsimony means that theories that are simpler in their
explanations, presuming fewer causal variables and more simple causal
mechanisms (e.g., direct effects rather than multiple interactions), should
be preferred, other things being equal (p. 39).
This paper therefore uses the simple model presented
Step
1
:
Figure
1.
Goal Coniprehension
Before
1968).
in
a
goal can influence performance,
An experiment by Bavelas
E-
it
must be comprehended (Locke,
Lee (1978) demonstrates that simple
quantitative goals influence goal comprehension by providing information which
defines the task.
In
this
experiment subjects were shown 50 cards: one card
14
had
a
15 X 15
mm square drawn
on
it,
the other 49 cards had parallelograms
The subjects were then asked
which increasingly deviated from the square.
find the 5,
25, 35, or 45 cards with squares
15,
drawn on them.
to
The
experimenters found that the subjects selected the specified number of figures,
gradually relaxing the definition of
a
square, as the specified goal increased.
This shows that the goal influenced the subjects'understanding of what the
experimenters meant by
A simple task
to
perform
is
a
square.
one that
is
familiar to the individual
or one that requires only
it,
a
who has been asked
For such
few decisions.
a
task,
subgoals may decrease the person's understanding of the superordinate goal.
For example,
a
widget maker may perform only
predictable environment.
a
few repetitious tasks
in
a
Since the tasks are repetitious, the widget maker
does not need to think about the steps by which the task
is
performed.
Such
specification of the steps will certainly increase the time required for the
widget maker to comprehend the goal; the widget maker
will
need to think
about each individual step before determining what the goal actually
Specification of the steps
may even suggest that the
goal
is
is.
unfamiliar and
therefore inhibit the widget maker's ability to recognize the goal as being
familiar.
goal
a
is
Conversely, the use of
familiar one.
a
simple goal would instantly indicate that the
Furthermore, since the environment
is
predictable, this
widget maker does not need to think about the necessity of coordinating with
others; the standard procedures do
all
the coordination necessary.
relate the widget maker's task to the tasks of others
maker
as to his/her precise responsibilities.
Finally,
Goals which
may confuse the widget
goals which relate the
widget maker's task to environmental contingencies, such as the possibility of
problems with obtaining the necessary materials, may lead the widget maker
wonder:
"Should
I
obtain the necessary materials, or wait for them to be
15
to
brought
work station?"
to the
This suggests that:
Hypothesis #1 - For a simple task, simple goals lead to better goal
comprehension than do goal systems.
Conversely,
it
may not be
task just what the goal
clear to the individual performing a complex
for such a task,
is;
a
goal system provides information
Subgoals explicitly
which can increase the individual's goal comprehension.
focus the individual's attention (Bandura, 1988;
Locke et
al.
1981) on a group of
This can help to clarify the superordinate goal.
desirable objectives.
For example, the air traffic controller's superordinate goal may specify
that the goal
is
Subgoals can clarify this objective by noting that
plane safety.
the controller determines whether
it
is
A
safe to use the scheduled airport.
simple goal would omit the clarifying subgoal; the air traffic controller might,
therefore, think that the superordinate goal was plane safety at the assigned
Thus, subgoals may lead
airport.
to a better
understanding of the superordinate
goal.
Additionally,
because
a
goal system
is
hierarchical,
it
is
considered
schema
(Foti
i.e.,
framework for systematizing information (Abelson, 1981; Brewer
a
& Lord,
Treyens, 1981).
Lichtenstein £ Brewer,
1987;
1980;
Lord & Kernan, 1987),
1978;
Chase
& Ericsson,
1982).
Schemas can include both information which has been explicitly related
(i.e.,
& Turner,
comprehension
system
is
a
to the
formally presented goals and subgoals), and information which
has not been explicitly related to the framework (i.e.,
Black,
&
This framework increases the amount of knowledge which the
individual can store (Anderson & Pichert,
framework
a
(Foti
schema,
& Lord,
it
1987;
Lichtenstein
(Bower,
Schemas therefore improve
Lord & Kernan, 1987).
1979;
inferred goals)
£•
Brewer, 1980).
Since
a
goal
should lead to improved goal comprehension.
This suggests:
Hypothesis #2
-
For
a
complex task, goal systems lead to better goal
16
comprehension than do simple goals.
[Insert Figure 2 about here]
Step
2:
Goal Acceptance
Goal comprehension does not necessarily lead to performance; an individual
may comprehend
a
goal and yet decline to
work for
happen when the individual believes that he/she
reaching the goal (Erez t Zidon, 1984;
probable failure may appear less painful
Locke,
if
it
is
is
most
likely to
unlikely to succeed
Latham
is
This
it.
£•
Erez,
possible to say:
in
1988); the
"I
never really
intended to do that."
Specific-difficult goals influence goal acceptance
by contributing
to the
individual's understanding of the goal and ability to select an appropriate
When the
strategy.
increases (Earley,
Similiarly,
strategy
individual understands the task,
1986);
this
his/her self-efficacy
leads to increased goal acceptance (Earley,
1985).
goals which increase the individual's ability to select an appropriate
will
lead to increased self-efficacy and,
therefore, to increased goal
However, specific-difficult goals also influence goal acceptance by
acceptance.
influencing the individual's estimate of the difficulty of achieving the goal.
As
the perceived difficulty of the goal increases, the individual's self-efficacy
decreases (Bandura & Wood, 1989); this should lead to decreased goal acceptance
(Wood, Bandura, & Bailey,
acceptance
is,
Clearly,
is
For
little
it
a
in
press^).
The net
effect of goal type on goal
therefore, the result of two potentially conflicting tendencies.
possible for these two effects to cancel each other out.
simple task
,
a
simple goal
is
hypothesized to lead to better goal
Wood, Bandura, and Bailey expected to demonstrate this but obtained
in goal acceptance with their subjects.
variance
17
.
comprehension than
a goal
A
increasd goal acceptance.
information;
system; this implies that simple goals should lead to
goal system,
however, provides additional
some circumstances this information might lead the individual to
in
perceive the task as being less difficult and therefore lead to increased goal
This may explain
acceptance.
why research shows both
effect on goal acceptance (Campbell & Gingrich,
1986;
that information has no
Earley,
1985
-
for
subjects with assigned work strategies;
Erez & Arad, 1986) and that information
increases goal acceptance (Earley,
-
select their preferred
Thus,
it
is
1985
for subjects
who were permitted
to
work strategy).
unclear whether
a
simple goal or
higher goal acceptance for simple tasks.
a
goal system will lead to
Resolution of this question requires
testing two competing hypotheses":
Hypothesis #3a - For a simple task, simple goals lead to higher goal
acceptance than do goal systems.
Hypothesis #3b - For a simple task, goal systems lead to higher goal
acceptance than do simple goals.
For
a
complex task
goal systems have been hypothesized to provide
,
information which leads to increased goal comprehension.
comprehension
is
thought
to
Since goal
be an important determinant of self-efficacy and,
therefore, of goal acceptance, goal systems should lead to increased goal
acceptance for complex tasks.
who found
subjects
This hypothesis
is
supported by Earley (1985),
that providing additional information increased goal acceptance of
who were asked
to
perform complex versions of the scheduling and
cleaning tasks, whether or not they had control over their choice of work
strategies
It
is
also possible,
however, that goal systems
will
lead to lower goal
^ The research design also includes measurement of self-efficacy and
perceived goal difficulty.
acceptance for
a
We have seen
complex task.
that goal systems provide
information which increases the individual's awareness of the need to choose
between several competing goals.
goal difficulty.
This may lead to an increase
Since goal acceptance
perceived
decreased by goal difficulty (Erez &
is
1984), this suggests that goal systems
Zidon,
in
may
lead to lower goal
acceptance than simple goals.
This
also an unresolved question
is
which requires testing two competing
hypotheses.
Hypothesis #4a - For a complex task, goal systems lead to higher goal
acceptance than do simple goals.
Hypothesis #4b - For a complex task, simple goals lead to higher goal
acceptance than do goal systems.
Step 3: Action or Strategy Planning
Once the individual has accepted the
goal,
Wood and Locke (forthcoming) propose that there are two kinds
action plan.
task-specific action plans:
is
experienced
habitual strategy (i.e.,
action plan
plans
in
a
is
at
a
it
of
When an
stored action plans and new action plans.
individual understands a task and performs
individual
he/she forms or selects an
repeatedly (i.e., when the
performing the task), that individual develops
stored action plan) for performing that task.
a
A new
created either when the individual combines several stored action
new way or when the individual invents
a
new approach
to
accomplishing the task (Wood & Locke, forthcoming).
On
a
simple task
,
stored action plans lead to improved performance (Wood
and Locke, forthcoming).
Wood and Locke point out
simple repetitive task or goal,
it."
"In the case of a
such as driving downtown to pick up the dry
cleaning, one hardly needs to think of
perform
that:
(forthcoming, p. 2).
A
a
plan of action at
all
in
order to
familiar or stored action plan
19
is
executed
with a minimum of effort while a new action plan requires considerable effort.
(Consider trying to write
usually use.)
I
brush your teeth with the hand you do not
letter or
a
therefore postulate, as do Wood and Locke (forthcoming), that
simple task, the use of
a
stored action plan leads to better performance
than the creation and use of
a
new
on
a
A highly complex task
A task
plan.
are
large
a
number
a
new
action
has multiple objectives and because there
it
of potentially appropriate actions for achieving those
The choice
objectives.
however, requires the creation of
,
complex because
is
action plan.
of an appropriate action
influenced by multiple
is
information cues and/or high coordination needs and/or dynamic conditions
Thus,
(Wood, 1986).
is
it
appropriate action plan.
complex tasks
I
impossible to specify
in
advance what constitutes an
therefore postulate that the performance of highly
improved by the use of new action plans.
is
A simple goal specifies the desired outcome and omits mention
complicating factors.
therefore impies that the present situation
It
situation and that the desired outcome
also implies that a
and that
If
this
this
approach
is
use
a
a familiar
a
more complete set
Thus,
a
They
say:
"Specific [i.e.,
28-29)."
For example,
if
Wood and Locke
STSP
may have
a
this
priming
the widget maker has been successfully
consider other procedures; the widget maker
to lead to
call
[stored task specific
meeting the goal of making 12 widgets an hour, that individual
Thus, simple goals tend
results
of goal communications
simple] goals
effect which leads to the selection of a particular
(pp.
goal
simple goal increases the individual's
stored action plan (see Figure 2).
the cueing effect.
plan]
A simple
outcome.
familiar
a
anticipated to continue producing satisfactory results.
would presumably be used.
to
is
is
known approach has previously produced satisfactory
were not the case, then
tendency
of
will
tend to use
a
is
unlikely to
proven approach.
decreased planning or consideration of
20
.
.
options and to increased use of stored action plan (Wood and Locke,
forthcoming)
Goal systems aid
the development of
in
a
new
plan.
Inclusion of multiple
subgoals increases the number of action plan possibilities which the individual
considers because each subgoal needs to be addressed by an action plan.
When
these subgoals are both specific and familiar, they remind the individual of
stored action plans (Wood & Locke, forthcoming), thus potentially increasing the
appropriateness of the included stored action plans.
unfamiliar,
the individual does not have
When the subgoals are
stored action plan; unfamiliar
a
subgoals therefore force the individual to select or develop new action plans
(Wood & Locke, forthcoming).
Then, assuming that the individual understands that the key determinant
performance
will
is
achievement of the superordinate goal,
all
of
of these action plans
be evaluated for their effect on the superordinate goal.
Any
plans which
are incompatible with the achievement of the superordinate goal would be
discarded.
Here the goal system serves as
a
template against which to judge
the appropriateness of the various possibilities.
Because the goal system
overall action plan.
is
a
schema,
A schema provides
a
it
helps the individual to design an
framework which encourages the
individual to look at the overall set of desired objectives and the associated
This framework then enables the individual to select
action plan possibilities.
an appropriate group of action plan possibilities without consciously considering
each possibility (Alba & Hasher,
Jackson, 1987).
will
Thus,
a
1983;
Cantor
£•
Mischel,
1979;
Dutton &
goal system increases the possibility that the individual
find an effective plan which simultaneously accomplishes multiple
objectives
Since performance of
a
simple task
21
is
anticipated to be improved by the
use of
a
stored action plan, and since the performance of
a
complex task
is
anticipated to be improved by the use of a new action plan, this suggests:
Hypothesis #5 - For a simple task, simple goals lead to
appropriate action plan than do goal systems.
a
Hypothesis #6 - For a complex task, goal systems lead to
appropriate action plan than do simple goals.
more
a
more
Outcome: Performance
We have hypothesized
that for
action planning are improved
is
simple task
a
by the use
little
goal comprehension and
We have
of simple goals.
unclear whether simple goals or goal systems
acceptance.
,
will
said that
it
lead to higher goal
However, most studies have found that goal acceptance shows
variance; therefore, goal acceptance generally has
on performance (Garland,
1984;
Locke
1981;
et al.
a
Locke
relatively small effect
et al.
1988).
Therefore, assuming that we compare quantitative simple goals with quantitative
goal systems
and non-quantitative simple goals with non-quantitative goal
systems, we can hypothesize that:
Hypothesis #7 - For a simple task, simple goals lead
performance than do goal systems.
We have hypothesized
that goal systems lead to better goal comprehension
and action planning than simple goals.
task
is
to better
Since the performance of
a
complex
thought to be primarily influenced by goal comprehension and action
plan development (Wood & Locke, forthcoming) this suggests that goal systems
lead to improved performance of complex tasks.
Research has shown that information about the task
effective
1986;
in
improving the performance of
Earley 1985,
1986;
Erez
5-
a
is
particularly
complex task (Campbell & Gingrich,
Arad, 1986).
Since goal systems provide the
individual with more information than do simple goals, goal systems should lead
to better
performance than simple goals.
22
Additional support for this hypothesis
comes from the schema literature.
complex task
Tosi,
1973;
Theorists suggest that performance of
a
related to the quality of the individual's decisions (Carroll &
is
Perrow, 1970; Quinn, 1980; Smith, Locke, & Barry, forthcoming).
Since goal systems are schemas and since schemas lead to improved decision
making (Lurigio
6-
1985), goal systems should lead to improved decision
Carroll,
making and therefore
improved performance
to
of
complex tasks.
We therefore
hypothesize:
Hypothesis #8 - For a complex task, goal systems lead
performance than do simple goals.
to better
Methodology: Experimental Desig n
I
propose
to test these
hypotheses by conducting an experiment
task complexity and goal type are independently manipulated.
advantageous
to
use an experiment because
distinctly different goal types;
a
field
is
which
is
permits the creation of two
study would provide far
the goal communications during the study.
goal comprehension
it
It
in
Additionally,
in
a
less control
field
over
situation,
influenced by previous experiences and previous goal
communications.
Criteria for Selection of Experiment
The experiment needs
goal systems.
to
be appropriate for use with both simple goals and
This implies that the simple task should be straightforward, so
Conversely,
that subjects can rapidly develop an appropriate stored action plan.
there should not be
complex task; each
a
clearly identifiable correct approach for performaning the
trial
changing conditions.
should require evaluation of multiple objectives or
Only on tasks with
performance hypothesized
to be
this
degree of complexity
improved by the use
23
is
of a goal system.
.
Additionally,
in
order to test the eight hypotheses,
measure goal comprehension, goal acceptance, the quality
it
must be possible
to
of the action plan,
and overall performance.
Description of Proposed Experiment
I
have permission to use
initially
a
revised version of
a
computer simulation,
developed by Wood and Bailey (1985), which satisfies these criteria.
this simulation the subjects take the role of
restoring furniture
managers with responsibility for
the Special Order Department.
in
multiple production functions such as:
In
milling timber,
Restoration work requires
assembling parts, and
upholstering.
The subject makes four types
of decisions on each trial:
Descriptions of
1
Assignment of workers to production functions
production function requirements and employee skills, experience,
motivational level, preference for routine versus challenging work, and
standards of work quality are provided.
.
Assignment of production targets. Choices are: no target set, do your
best, target set at estimated time, target set 25% easier than estimated
time, target set 25% harder than estimated time.
2.
Feedback
Four choices are possible: no feedback, tell the worker the
actual hours in relation to the estimated hours, discuss working methods
but not reveal the actual time taken, discuss both the time taken and the
reasons for it.
3.
.
Social rewards
Three options are possible: no reward, compliment the
employee on performance, post a memo in the lunchroom acknowledging
the worker's contribution.
4.
On each
.
trial,
the subject assigns workers to production functions and
selects a production target for each worker.
The computer then informs the
subject of the time taken by each worker to complete the assigned function and
the total time taken by the unit to complete the production order.
then determines the type of feedback and reward each worker
The model uses assumptions based on Locke's
24
will
The subject
receive.
goal setting theory (Wood £
.
Bailey,
1985).
For example: Goals which represent
a
moderate challenge lead to
higher performance than no goals or instructions to do your best.
However,
continued use of goals that are not attainable reduces performance after two
who are
Instructive feedback improves performance for employees
trials.
performing below standard; however, use of high instructive feedback for
employees who are above standard, reduces performance.
improve performance when there
is
an equitable ratio of rewards to attainments
compared with the equivalent
for that employee
The complexity
of the simulation
and employee roster which are given
is
ratio for other
unambiguously suited
to
to the subject at the
one of three production jobs.
eight employees and eight production jobs
roster
is
designed so that there
is
employees.
varied through the production order
beginning of each
A simple simulation involves only three employees, each
trial.
rewards
Social
in
of
whom
is
Conversely, there are
the complex condition, and the
not an unambiguously superior set of
assignments
Suitability of the Simulation
The experiment
systems.
is
appropriate for use with both simple goals and goal
Wood, Bandura, and Bailey
(in
press) found that
goal improved subjects' performance in the simple condition.
condition,
simple quantitative
In
the complex
however, the researchers found that quantitative and non-
quantitative goals led to equivalent performance.
experimental task with eight production functions
goal system should lead to
designed so that
in
a
a
improved performance.
This suggests that the
is
sufficiently complex that a
Additionally, the task
is
subject needs to consider the interaction of multiple factors
making decisions.
For example:
Should
experience be given instructive feedback?
25
a
poor performer with extensive prior
Will
high performers become
demoralized
if
low performers receive equivalent recognition?
low performers be increasingly demoralized
I
propose that
a goal
a
number
1989; Wood,
of previous
by the number
to be credible.
all
of trials on
in
discussion);
therefore be included.
The model has been used
three studies measure the quality of the action plan
which the subject changes only one factor.
however, that the goal manipulation
a
task.
press) which are producing interpretable
measure has produced interpretable results and
below for
a
experiments (Bandura & Wood, 1989; Wood & Bandura,
Bandura, & Bailey,
Additionally,
results.
will
they do not receive recognition?
system can improve performance on such
The performance measure appears
in
if
Conversely,
a
will
new measure
lead this
be included.
measure
to
It
is
possible,
be ineffective (see
of action plan appropriateness will
Goal comprehension
has previously been done by French,
will
This
will
be measured by
self
report; this
Kay, and Meyer (1966) and Latham and
Steele (1983).
All
subjects receive identical orientation to their role
in
the experiment:
The Special Order Department operates on a weekly cycle. All special
orders which are received by noon on Friday are produced in the following
week.
Each Friday afternoon you receive a Job Requirements Manifest and
The Job
a memo from your manager (these will appear on the screen).
Requirements Manifest shows the estimated person-hours in each job
category required to complete the special order for the following week.
You will also receive a roster of workers available to work on the Special
Order production line for the following week. As the Special Order
Manager you must determine the allocation of personnel from the Special
Order Roster to specific jobs, on the basis of personnel available, their
skills, and the job requirements.
Subjects also receive identical information about the relationships between
the four variables:
The actual time an employee takes to complete a job depends in part on
the match between the employee's abilities and the skill requirements of
the job, and in part on the employee's motivation to do the job well.
Employee abilities and job skill requirements cannot be changed in the
short term, but motivation can be affected to some extent by the way in
which you set production targets, by the nature of the feedback about
past performance that you provide to the employee, and by your
allocation of rewards.
26
Goals
The experiment
will
be run
both simple and complex conditions
in
with four types of goals:
simple goal
simple goal
-
goal system
goal system
-
do your best
non-quantitative, i.e.,
quantitative,
non-quantitative, and
quantitative.
[See Figure 3]
Subjects receive identical orientation to their goal assignments:
Although the estimated hours are sometimes realistic, both you and your
manager recognize that they are often quite inaccurate. Your manager
therefore assigns you what he believes to be a realistic goal in a memo
which accompanies the Job Requirements Manifest.
The statement about the possible inaccuracy
to increase the
of the estimated hours
is
included
apparent validity of the assigned quantitative goals.
Subjects then receive goal assignments which relate to the experimental
condition to which they have been assigned.
non-quantitative goal subjects (cells
The memo says
and
that your goal
1
is
to
5)
fill
The
goal statement for the simple
will
say:
the orders
in
as few
person-hours
as possible.
The
(cells
2
goal statement for subjects
and
6)
will
The memo says
in
the simple quantitative goal condition
say:
that your goal
is
to
fill
the orders
in
75% of the estimated
time or less.
The
goal statement for subjects
condition (cells 3 and 7)
will
in
the non-quantitative goal system
say:
The memo says that your goal is to fill the orders in as few person-hours
as possible.
Your manager reminds you that productivity will be enhanced
if,
addition to the productivity goal, your objective on each trial is to:
improve the degree to which employees are assigned to jobs which
are appropriate to their interests and skills,
2.
increase employees' expectations that increased effort will lead to
better performance, and
3.
increase employees' expectations that improved performance
in
1
.
27
.
leads to rewards.
The
goal statement for subjects in the quantitative goal system conditions
and
(cells 4
8)
say:
will
The memo says that your goal is to fill the order in 75% of the estimated
Your manager reminds you that productivity will be
time or less.
enhanced
trial
is
addition to the productivity goal, your objective on each
in
if,
to:
achieve a score of 75% or better for the appropriateness with
which employees are assigned to jobs relative to their interests
and skills,
achieve a score of 75% or better for the strength of employees'
expectations that increased effort will lead to better performance,
and
achieve a score of 75% or better for the strength of employees'
expectation that improved performance leads to rewards.
1
2.
3.
Subjects
This experiment has been shown to be effective with business school
graduates (Wood & Bandura, 1989) and graduate students (Wood, Bandura,
Bailey,
managers
I
press).
in
in
It
is
&
therefore possible to include both graduate students and
the sample.
intend to run the experiment with 15 subjects per
This number of
cell.
subjects should be sufficient to obtain statistically significant results.
Manipulation Checks
self-efficacy and ability will be
Initial
the sample.
The
measured
self-efficacy of the subjects will be
receive any orientation to either experiment.
having
all
subjects play
a
to test the equivalence of
measured before they
Their ability
practice round (one week only) of
simple version of the game prior to receiving any goal.
and
will
The
ability of the subjects in the eight goal conditions should
After the goal
questions
will
is
a
be measured by
particularly
initial
self-efficacy
be equal.
assigned but before the subjects begin the game,
appear on the computer screen regarding the subject's
28
self-
efficacy and perception of goal difficulty.
!:-
measure the effect
will
of the
Self-efficacy and perceived goal difficulty
goal on the individual's self-efficacy.
will
This
measured again halfway through the experiment; these measures
reflect the joint effect of the goal
will
and the individual's experience on the
individual's self-efficacy and perception of goal difficulty.
The
self-efficacy question will be the one which has been used
studies (Bandura
in
press).
£•
Wood, 1989; Wood & Bandura, 1989; Wood, Bandura, & Bailey,
This measure describes nine possible levels of production efficiency
for the Special
Order Department ranging from 30% faster than the estimated
Subjects are asked to rate the strength of their
time to 40% slower.
confidence that they can attain each goal level on
represents no confidence and 9 equals
sum
previous
in
of their confidence scores for
Perceived goal difficulty
will
all
total
a
10 point scale
confidence.
where
Self-efficacy
is
the
nine levels.
be measured with
a
question used by Yuckl
and Latham (1978):
We are interested in your perception
your manager specified in his memo.
of the difficulty of the goal which
The memo said that your goal was to
[repeat goal statement].
How
difficult
do you think your goal
is?
Yuckl and Latham found that this question was not correlated with any of
three performance measures;
difficulty,
it
therefore appears to measure perceived goal
not subjective probability of success which generally correlates with
performance (e.g., Meyer, Schacht-Cole, & Gellatly, 1988; Motowidio, Loehr, &
Dunnette, 1978; Yuckl & Latham, 1978).
Subjects
will
be asked to rate goal
difficulty on a 9 point scale.
Tests of Hypotheses
Hypothesis #1 - For a simple task, simple goals lead to better goal
comprehension than do goal systems.
29
.
After the goal
will
is
assigned but before the subjects begin the game, subjects
be asked to evaluate their goal comprehension.
measured with slightly modified versions
Subjects
Steele (1983).
with each statement on
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
I
I
I
I
know what
goal
I
used by Latham and
9 point scale.
am confident that
am confident that
am confident that
My assigned
of five questions
is
understand the instructions for this simulation.
understand my role in the simulation.
know how to go about doing the task.
I
I
I
clear.
am accountable for on
this task.
Latham and Steele obtained an alpha of .75 for
This suggests
this scale.
Question number three, however,
that the scale measures a single construct.
appears to be more related to action planning than to goal comprehension.
is
be
will
be asked to rate the degree of their agreement
will
a
Goal comprehension
therefore possible that this question
will
It
be eliminated from the scale.
[Insert Figure 3 about here]
The hypothesis
will
be most strongly supported
comprehension of the simple quantitative goal subjects
if
the average goal
(cell
that of the quantitative goal system subjects (cell 4), and
comprehension of the simple non-quantitative goal subjects
that of the non-quantitative goal system subjects (cell 3).
in
cell#:
if
greater than
is
the average goal
(cell
1)
exceeds
(Goal comprehension
1>3 and 2>4.)
The hypothesis
will
also be
the simple goal subjects (cells
system subjects
of the goal
>
2)
1
supported
and
(cells 3
2)
if
the average goal comprehension of
exceeds the average goal comprehension
and 4).
(Goal comprehension
in
cells:
(1*2)
(3M).)
The hypothesis
will
be partially supported
of either the quantitative goal
goal subjects,
but not both groups of subjects.
or,
2>4 but 1<3).
30
simple goals improve the goal
subjects or the non-quantitative
comprehension
1>3 but 2£4,
if
(Goal comprehension of cell#:
Hypothesis #2 - For a complex task, goal systems lead to better goal
comprehension than do simple goals.
Goal comprehension
will
measured for Hypothesis
#1.
be measured
the same
in
This hypothesis
will
way that
it
was
be most strongly supported
if
the average goal comprehension of the non-quantitative goal system subjects
(cell
7)
is
greater than the average goal comprehension of the simple non-
quantitative goal subjects
(cell
5),
quantitative goal system subjects
and the average goal comprehension
(cell
8)
greater than the average goal
is
comprehension of the simple quantitative goal subjects
comprehension
cell#:
The hypothesis
of the
(cell
6).
(Goal
7>5 and 8>6.)
will
also be
supported
if
the average goal comprehension of
the goal system subjects (cells 7 plus 8) exceeds the average goal
comprehension
cell
#:
of the simple goal
subjects (cells 5 plus 6).
(Goal comprehension
(7*8) > (5*6).)
The hypothesis
will
be partiallv supported
if
goal systems improve the goal
comprehension of only the quantitative goal subjects or
quantitative goal subjects.
(Goal comprehension
in
of only the
non-
7>5 but S< 6, or, 8>6
cell^:
but 7<5.)
Hypothesis #3a - For a simple task, simple goals lead to higher goal
acceptance than do goal systems.
Hyp>othesis #3b - For a simple task, goal systems lead to higher goal
acceptance than do goal systems.
Goat acceptance
round
of the
game
will
(i.e.,
be measured after subjects have tried the preliminary
the ability control), the goal
reported their perceptions of goal difficulty.
based on some experience with the game.
is
assigned, and they have
Thus, goal acceptance
Additionally,
because they
have answered questions about their perception of goal difficulty,
possible to obtain more variance
Goal acceptance
will
in
goal acceptance than
be measured with
31
a
will
is
it
will
be
just
may be
customary.
slightly modified three item scale
used by Erez and Arad (1986) (Cronbach's alpha
=
.83).
1. (Commitment to a goal means acceptance of it as your own person goal
and your determination to attain it.)
am committed to attaining the goal
that was set.
2. It is important to me to at least attain the goal that was set.
3.
will strive to attain the goal that was set.
I
I
Subjects
statements on
will
a
be asked to rate the degree to which they agree with these
Goal acceptance
9 point scale.
will
also be
measured
a
second
time halfway through the game.
The same pattern
Hypothesis #3a.
of responses that
The pattern
supports Hypothesis
#1
will
support
responses that disconfirms Hypothesis #1
of
will
support Hypothesis #3b.
Hypothsis #4a - For a complex task, goal systems lead to higher goal
acceptance than do simple goals.
Hypothesis #4b - For a complex task, simple goals lead to higher goal
acceptance than do goal systems.
Goal acceptance
for
will
be measured
Hypotheses #3a and #3b.
Hypothesis #2
will
the same
in
The same pattern
support Hypothesis #4a
disconfirms Hypothesis #2
will
.
of
way
that
it
was measured
responses that supports
The pattern
of responses that
support Hypothesis #4b.
Hyfjothesis #5 - For a simple task, simple goals lead to a more
appropriate action plan than do goal systems.
Action planning
will
studies (Bandura & Wood,
be measured
1989;
forthcoming), action planning
Wood
will
several ways.
in
£•
be measured by the average number of trials
(i.e.
production function, goal level,
feedback, or social reward) for an individual employee.
factor on
All
the
a
trial,
in
as in previous
Bandura, 1989; Wood, Bandura, & Bailey,
on which subjects change only one factor
argue that subjects who engage
First,
Wood and
his associates
hypothesis testing by changing only one
learn more about the effect of each factor on the employee.
three studies found that subjects' performance was positively associated with
number
of trials on
which subjects changed only one factor.
32
This suggests
The same pattern
that this represents an appropriate action plan.
which
support Hypothesis #1,
will
Nevertheless,
is
it
support this hypothesis.
will
possible that this measure
anticipated result because the goal systems
will
fail
may increase
to
produce the
subject's task
reduce subjects' need for hypothsis testing (Wood,
understanding sufficiently
to
personal communication).
The experiment
will
therefore include some new
measures of the appropriateness of the action planning process.
measures
will
of results
These new
be based on subjects' evaluation of the relative effectiveness of
These responses
various strategies after they have finished playing the game.
be analyzed to see whether certain strategies are more strongly associated
will
with superior performance than other strategies.
the responses
will
be analyzed to see whether the subjects
conditions employed different strategies.
of results
copy
which
of the
such differences are found,
If
will
If
support Hypothesis #1,
proposed questions can be found
that
will
in
is
in
the different goal
the case, the same pattern
support this hypothesis.
(A
Appendix #1.)
Hypothesis #6 - For a complex task, goal systems lead to a more
appropriate action plan than do simple goals.
Action planning
for Hypothesis #5;
be measured
will
in
the same way that
the same pattern of results which
will
it
was measured
support Hypothesis #4,
would support this hypothesis.
Hyfxjthesis #7
-
For a simple task, simple goals lead to better
performance than do goal systems.
On every
trial,
a
subject's goal
is
expressed
in
relation to the hours
required to complete the production order, and the simulation estimates the
number
of
hours which would be required
Subjects' performance will, therefore,
the
number
order.
of
to
complete the production order.
be measured by the model's estimate of
personhours which would be required
to complete the production
As with the previous hypotheses, the same pattern
33
of results
which
will
support Hypothesis #1,
will
support this hypothesis.
Hypothesis #8 - For a complex task, goal systems lead to better
performance than do simple goals.
Performance
which
will
support Hypothesis #2
will
The same pattern
be estimated by the model.
will
of results
support this hypothesis.
Contribution of the Research
Theoretical
We know very
complex tasks (Locke
et al.
advance our knowledge
of simple
about the attributes which make goals effective for
little
1989;
Wood
et al.
of goal attributes
This research project
1987).
will
which lead to improved performance
versus complex tasks.
The study
will
produce data which can be used
also
to
compare the
process by which goals influence the performance of simple versus complex
tasks.
steps,
The study does
goal comprehension,
influence performance,
a
of the studies
list
in
goal acceptance,
both
a
simple and
of goals on three of the
and action planning, by which goals
a
complex task.
which measure more than one step
goals influence performance
measure the effect
by measuring the effect
this
.
Table #2 provides
a
list
in
Table
#1
provides
the process by which
of the studies
of goals on tasks of differing levels of complexity.
which
The
In listing the studies which account for two of the mechanisms,
include some studies which measure two aspects of the action planning step,
i.e., effort and planning.
This is appropriate because effort and planning,
although correlated, make independent contributions to performance (Earley et
al. 1987).
think
categorize effort as part of the action planning step because
that after an individual decides on the degree to which he/she accepts a goal,
the individual then considers how to achieve the goal.
Effort is one potential
tool for achieving a goal, however, the individual may choose other strategies.
This may explain why Mento, Cartledge, & Locke (1980) found that effort was
unrelated to goal acceptance.
'
I
I
I
34
reader
appears
in
Bandura, and Bailey
note that only the Wood,
will
This study therefore represent
both tables.
a
(in
press) study
significant increase
in
such knowledge.
This data
to
be used to begin to consider questions such as: the degree
will
which goal comprehension, goal acceptance, and action planning explain the
process by which goals influence performance; the relative importance of these
steps
simple versus complex situations; and the effect of each step on the
in
other steps.
The study may
also remind other researchers of the value to be gained
from including measurement of more of the relevant mechanisms
This would lead to
studies.
in
their
rapid expansion of our knowledge of the process
a
by which goals influence performance.
Practical
At an applied level
I
anticipate that completion of this study will increase
organizations' ability to obtain excellent performance on complex tasks.
study
will
The
do this by increasing our knowledge of the attributes which are
associated with effective goals for complex tasks.
lead to the use of
This knowledge can then
more appropriate goals for individuals, and hence
to
increased organizational performance.
Individuals
(Berlew
will
also benefit from this study.
1966;
& Hall,
Feather,
1966,
1968),
Since success breeds success
individuals
successful because of the use of appropriate goals
will
who have once been more
have increased capacity
for future successes.
Thus,
effectiveness, this
lead to an increased sense of self-efficacy (Bandura,
1982).
1982;
will
if
goal systems increase the individual's
This increased self efficacy
Bandura
&
will
lead to
improved performance (Bandura,
Wood, 1989; Locke, Frederick, Lee, C Bobko, 1984; Sales, 1970;
35
Tatum
&
Nebeker, 1989; Taylor, Locke, Lee, & Gist, 1984; Wood & Bandura,
1989; Wood,
Bandura, & Bailey,
in
press).
36
1
1
REFERENCES
Abelson, R. P. (1981). Psychological status of the script concept. American
PsvcholoQist. 2£, 715-729.
Alba, J. W.,
203-231.
& Hasher,
(1983).
L.
Is
memory schematic? Psychological
Bulletin
.
93,
Anderson, R.
C,
Recall of previously unrecallable
Journal of Verbal Learning and
& Pichert, J. W. (1978).
a shift in perspective.
Verbal Behavior. H, 1-12.
information following
Bandura, A. (1982). Self efficacy mechanism
Psvchologist
.
human agency. American
in
122-147.
37,
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive
Englewood Cliffs, N J Prentice-Hall.
view
:
.
Bandura, A. (1988). Self-regulation of motivation and action through goal
In V. Hamilton, G. H. Bower, & N. H. Frijda (Eds.), Cognition,
motivation, and affect: A cognitive science view Dordrecht: Kluwer.
systems.
.
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms
governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and
Social Psvchologv
45, 1017-1028.
.
Bandura, A., & Wood, R. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and
performance standards on self-regulation of complex decision making. Journal of
Personalitv and Social Psycholoqv 56 805-814.
,
,
Baumler, J. V. (1971). Defined criteria of performance
Administrative Science Quarterly 16 340-350.
,
organizational control.
in
.
Bavelas, J. B., & Lee, E. S. (1978). Effects of goal level on performance: A
trade-off of quantity and quality. Canadian Journal of Psvchologv 32, 219-240.
,
Berlew, D. E., & Hall, D. T. (1966). The socialization of managers: Effects of
207-223.
expectations on performance. Administrative Science Quarterly 1
.
Bower, G. H., Black,
Cognitive Psychology.
J.
1
.
B., & Turner, T. J.
177-220.
Brewer, W. F., & Treyens, J. C. (1981).
Cognitive Psychology. 13, 207-230.
(1979).
Scripts
Role of schemata
in
,
in
memory
memory
for text.
for places.
Campbell, D. J., & Gingrich, K. F. (1986). The interactive effects of task
complexity and participation on task performance: A field experiment.
Qrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 38 162-180.
.
Campbell, D. J., & llgen, D. R. (1976). Additive effects of task difficulty and
goal setting onsubsequent task performance. Journal of Applied Psvchologv, 61
319-324.
37
.
.
Campion, M. A., & Lord, R. G. (1982). A control -system conceptualization of the
goal-setting and changing process. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance. 3Q, 265-287.
Cantor, N., & Mischel, W. (1979). Prototypes in person perception. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 12, NY:
Academic.
Carroll,
S.
J.,
& Tosi,
H.
Research
NY: Macmillan.
Chase, W.
C,
& Ericsson,
L.
K.
Bower (Ed.), The psychology
Management by objectives: Applications and
(1973).
A.
(1982).
of learning
Skill and working memory. In G. H.
and motivation (Vol. 16). NY: Academic
Press.
Chesney, A., & Locke, E. A. (1985). An examination of the relations among
strategies, and performance on a complex management simulation study.
Unpublished manuscript. University of Marylrind.
goals,
Cyert,
R.
Cliffs,
NJ:
M.,
&
March,
J.
G.
A behavioral theory
(1963).
of the firm
.
Englewood
Prentice-Hall.
Drucker, P.F. (1989). The new realities: In government and politics/in economics
and business/in society and world view NY: Harper and Row.
.
Dutton, J. E., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Categorizing strategic issues:
76-90.
organizational action. Academy of Management Review
12
.
Links to
,
Earley, P. C. (1985). The influence of information, choice, and task complexity
upon goal acceptance, performance, and personal goals. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 70, 481-491.
Earley, P. C. (1986). Supervisors and shop steward as sources of contextual
information in goal setting: A comparison of the U.S. with England. Journal of
Applied Psychology H, 111-118.
.
Earley, P. C, Connolly, T., & Ekegren, G. (1989). Goals, strategy development,
and task performance: Some limits on the efficacy of goal setting. Journal of
Applied Psychology 74, 24-33.
,
C,
Hanson, L. A., & Lee, C. (1986). Relation of task complexity, task
individual differences and goals to performance. Academy of
Management: Best Papers Proceedings 184-188.
Earley, P.
strategies,
.
Earley, P. C, Lee, C, & Hanson, L. A. (1989). Joint moderating effects of job
experience, task component complexity: Relations among goal setting, task
strategies, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10,
.
Earley,
P.
C,
& Prest, W. (1987). Task planning and energy
how goals influence performance. Journal of Applied
Wojnaroski, P.,
expended: Exploration
of
Psychology. 72, 107-114.
Erez, M., & Arad, R. (1986). Participative goal-setting: Social, motivational, and
591-597.
Cognitive Factors. Journal of Applied Psychology. 71
.
38
Erez, M., & Zidon, J. (1984). Effects of goal acceptance on the relationship of
goal difficulty to performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 69 69-78.
.
Feather, N. T. (1966). Effects of prior success and failure on expectations of
success and subsequent performance. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 3, 287-298.
Feather, N. T. (1968). Change in confidence following success or failure as
predictor of subsequent performance. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 9, 38-46.
a
Foti, R. J., & Lord, R. G. (1987). Prototypes and scripts: The effects of
alternative methods of processing information on rating accuracy. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes 39 318-340.
.
.
French, J. R. P., Kay, E., & Meyer, H. H.
system. Human Relations 19 3-19.
,
(1966).
Participation and the appraisal
.
Frost, P. J., & Mahoney, T. A. (1976). Goal setting and the task process:
interactive influence on individual performance. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance
17
.
,
An
1.
328-350.
(1983). Influence of ability, assigned goals, and mormative
information on personal goals and performance: A challenge to the goal
20-30.
attainability assumption. Journal of Applied Psychology. 68
Garland, H.
.
(1984). Relation of effort performance expectancy to performance
goal setting experiments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 79-85.
Garland, H.
in
,
Hackman, J. R., Brousseau, K. R., & Weiss, J. A. (1976). The interaction of task
design and group performance strategies in determining group effectiveness.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16 350-365.
,
Hirst, M.
(1988).
K.
.
Intrinsic motivation as influenced by task interdependence
of Applied Psychology. 73, 96-101.
and goal setting. Journal
Huber, V. L. (1985). Effects of task difficulty, goal setting, and strategy
onperformance of a heuristic task. Journal of Applied Psychology. 70 492-504.
.
Humphreys, M. S., & Revelle, W. (1984). Personality, motivation, and
performance: A theory of the relationship between individual differences and
information processing. Psychological Review 91
153-184.
.
.
Ilgen, D. R., £• Moore, C. F. (1987). Types and choices of performance feedback.
Journal of Applied Psychology. 72 401-406.
,
Ivancevich, J. M. (1976). The effects of goal setting on performance and job
605-612.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 61
satisfaction.
Ivancevich,
.
J.
M.
(1977).
Different goal setting treatments and their effects on
20 406-419.
of Management Journal
performance and job satisfaction. Academy
Ivancevich,
J.
M.,
&
McMahon,
J.
T.
(1977a).
39
,
,
Black-white differences
in
a
goal-
1
setting program. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance
.
287-300.
20,
Ivancevich, J. J., & McMahon, J. T. (1977b). Education as a moderator of goal
setting effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 1
83-94.
,
Ivancevich, J. J., & McMahon, J. T. (1977c). A study of task goal attributes,
higher order need strength, and performance. Academy of Management Journal
20,
.
552-563.
Ivancevich, J. M., & McMahon, J. T. (1982). The effects of goal setting, external
feedback, and self generated feedback on outcome variables: A field experiment.
Academv of Management Journal 25 359-372.
.
,
Jackson, S. E., & Zedeck, S. (1982). Explaining performance variablity:
Contribution of goal setting, task characteristics and evaluative contexts.
Journal of Applied Psychologv. 67, 759-768.
Janis,
I.
conflict,
L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision-making:
choice, and commitment
NY: Free Press.
A psychological
analysis of
.
Kim, J. S. (1984). Effect of behavior plus outcome goal setting and feedback on
employee satisfaction and performance. Academv of Management Journal 27
.
.
139-149.
Latham, G. P., & Lee, T. W. (1985). Goal setting. In E. A. Locke (Ed.),
Generalizing from Laboratorv to Field Settings: Research Findings from
Industrial-Organizational Psvchology. Organizational Behavior, and Human
Resource Management Lexington, MA: Heath Lexington.
.
Latham, G. P., & Steele, T. P. (1983). The motivational effects of participation
versus goal setting on performance. Academv of Management Journal 26 406,
.
417.
Lichtenstein, E. H., & Brewer, W.
Cognitive Psychologv, 12, 412-445.
(1980).
F.
Memory
for goal-directed events.
Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and behavior.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 3, 157-189.
,
Locke, E. A., Chah, D., Harrison, S., & Lustgarten, N. (1989). Separating the
effects of goal specificity from goal level. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 43, 270-287.
.
C,
Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee,
t Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy,
goals, and task strategies on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
69, 241-251.
Locke, E. A.,
performance
.
& Latham,
Englewood
G.
P.
Cliffs,
(forthcoming).
NJ
:
A theorv
of goal setting
and task
Prentice-Hall.
Locke, E. A., Latham, G. P., £• Erez, M. (1988). The determinants of goal
commitment. Academv of Management Review 13 23-39.
.
Locke, E. A., Shaw,
K.
N.,
Saari,
L.
40
M.,
.
& Latham,
G.
P.
(1981).
Goal setting
.
and task performance: 1969
Psychological Bulletin
1980.
-
125-152.
90,
.
Lord, R. G., £• Kernan, M. C. (1987). Scripts as determinants of purposeful
behavior in organizations. Academy of Management Review. 12, 265-277.
Lurigio, A. J., & Carroll, J. S. (1985). Probation officers' schemata of offenders:
Content, development, and impact on treatment decisions. Journal of Personality
and Social Psvchologv 48, 1112-1126.
.
March,
J.
G.,
& Simon,
H.
A.
Organizations
(1958).
NY: Wiley.
.
McCaul, K. D., Hinsz, V. B., £• McCaul, H. S. (1987). The effects of commitment
437to performance goals on effort. Journal of Applied Social Psychology
17
.
,
452.
Mento, A. J., Cartedge, N. D., & Locke, E. A. (1980). Maryland vs. Minnesota:
Another look at the relationship of expectancy and goaldifficulty to task
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 25 419-440.
.
,
R.P., & Karren, R. J. (1987). A meta-analytic study of the
effects of goal setting on task performance: 1966 - 1984. Organizational
Mento, A. J., Steel,
Behavior and Human Decision Processes
,
39
,
52-83.
J. P., Schacht-Cole, B., & Gellatly, I. R. (1988). An examination of the
cognitive mechanisms by which assigned goals affect task performance and
reactions to performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology
18 390-408.
Meyer,
,
,
Miner, J. B. (1984). The validity and usefulness of theories in an emerging
organizational science. Academy of Management Review 9, 296-306.
.
Loehr, V., & Dunnette, M. D. (1978). A laboratory study of the
effects of goal specificity on the relationship between probability of success and
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 63, 172-179.
Motowidio, S. J.,
Naylor, J. C, & llgen, D. R. (1984). Goal setting: A theoretical analysis of
motivation technology. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior vol. 6, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
,
Neale,
M.
A.,
Northcraft, G.
B.,
£•
Earley,
P.
C.
The
joint effects of goal-setting
and expertise on negotiator performance. Unpublished manuscript.
Newell, A., & Simon,
Prentice-Hall
Perrow, C. B.
Brooks-Cole.
(1970).
Pfeffer, J.
(1982).
Pinder,
C.
C.
H.
A.
(1972).
Human problem solving
Organizational analysis:
A
Work motivation
.
Glenview,
Englewood
sociological view
Organizations and Organization Theory
(1984).
.
IL:
.
Boston:
.
Cliffs,
NJ:
Belmont, CA:
Pitman.
Scott- Foresman.
Pritchard, R. D., Jones, S. D., Roth, P.L., Stuebing, K. K., & Ekeberg, S. E.
(1988). Effects of group feedback, goal setting, and incentives on organizational
productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph 73 337-358.
.
41
.
.
Quinn, J. B. (1980). Strategies for change: Logical incrementalism
Richard D. Irwin.
.
Homewood,
IL:
Riedel, J. A., Nebeker, D. M., & Cooper, B. L. (1988). The influence of monetary
incentives on goal choice, goal commitment, and task performance.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process. 42, 155-180.
Sales, S. M. (1970). Some effects of role overload and role underload.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 5, 592-608.
,
Schneider, B.
(1985).
Organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psvchology, 36
Locke,
E.
,
573-611.
Smith,
G.,
K.
A.,
&
Barry, D.
(Forthcoming). Goal setting, planning
and organizational performance: An experimental simulation. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes
.
Staw,
field's
M. (1984). Organizational behavior: A review and reformulation
outcome variables. Annual Review of Psvchology, 35 627-666.
B.
of the
,
Steers, R. M. (1975). Task-goal attributes, achievement, and supervisor
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 13 392-403.
,
Steers,
R.
edition).
M.,
& Porter,
L.
W.
,
Motivationa and work behavior (4th
(1987).
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Tatum, B. C., & Nebeker, D. M. (1989). A model of work strategies. Unpublished
manuscript.
Tatum, B. C., Nebeker, D. M., Cooper, B. L., & Riedel,
Work strategies: The development and testing
Human
Personnel Research and Development Center,
Organizational Systems Laboratory.
J. A. (March, 1986).
(Note 72-86-5). Navy
Factors and and
of a model.
Taylor, M. S., Locke, E. A., Lee, C, & Gist, M. (1984). Type A behavior and
faculty research productivity: What are the mechanisms? Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance 34, 402-418.
,
Terborg, J. R. (1976). The motivational components of goal setting. Journal of
Applied Psvchologv. 61 613-621
,
Tubbs, M.
E. (1986). Goal setting: A meta analytic examination of the empirical
evidence. Journal of Applied Psvchologv, 71 474-483.
,
Wood, R. E. (1986). Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes 37, 60-82.
,
Wood, R. E., & Bailey, T. (1985). Some unanswered questions about goal effect:
A recommended change in research methods. Australian Journal of Management.
10,
61-73.
Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self
regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personalitv and
42
Social
PsvcholoQv
.
56,
407-415.
Wood, R., Bandura, A., & Bailey, T. (In press). Mechanisms governing
organizational performance in complex decision-making environments.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
.
Wood, R. E., & Locke, E. A. (forthcoming, 1989). Goal setting and strategy
effects on complex tasks. In B. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.). Research
Organizational Behavior (Vol 12). Greenwich, CT: JAI press.
Wood, R. E., Mento, A. J., £• Locke, E. A. (1987). Task complexity as a
moderator of goal effects: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 72
416-425.
& Latham, G. P. (1978). Interrelationships among employee
participation, individual differences, goal difficulty, goal acceptance, goal
instrumentality, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 31, 305-323.
Yuckl, G. A.,
43
in
.
APPENDIX
1
THE EFFECT OF QUANTITATIVE SPECIFICITY ON
THE PERFORMANCE OF COMPLEX TASKS
If
paper were to discuss the process by which quantitative goals
this
influence performance,
it
would note that quantitative specificity defines the
desired level of performance; this
persistence
is
needed
tells
the individual how much effort and
to achieve the goal
(Locke et
al.
1981).
Quantitative
goals generally lead to improved performance for tasks of low to moderate
complexity.
appear
to
On tasks
of high complexity,
however, difficult quantitative goals
put excessive pressure on the individual for immediate performance.
This may lead to excessive arousal which interferes with the cognitive processes
involved
in
action planning
(Bandura
5-
Wood, 1989; Humphreys & Revelle, 1984).
For example, Huber (1985) found that subjects who were given
difficult quantitative goal on a
subjects
who were given easy
a
complex maze problem were more aroused than
goals.
These subjects with
difficult quantitative
goals viewed the overall maze more frequently than did subjects with easy or
vague goals, even though such viewing was penalized.
moves
to solve the puzzle than did the subjects with
They
also required
easy goals.
more
Huber
therefore concludes that the difficult quantitative goal led to increased arousal
and therefore to an inferior action plan and reduced performance.
44
APPENDIX
2
PROPOSED QUESTIONS FOR MEASURING TYPE OF ACTION PLAN
GAME REVIEW
-
QUESTION
1.
During the course of the simulation you may have tried a variety of strategies.
Please answer the following questions in regard to those strategies which you
tended to use during the second half of the game.
Please rank the following tasks in the order in which you performed them.
Thus, the task which you performed first should be given a 1, the task which
you performed second should be given a 2, and so forth. Tasks which you did
not consciously perform should be given an n .a. (not applicable).
In
assigning workers to tasks, the first thing
did was to:
I
Select employees for the most difficult tasks
Select employees for the tasks which were estimated to require the most
.
hours
.
the tasks for which one particular employee was clearly the most
suited
Assign a worker to the first task on the production order
Assign the first employee on the roster to a task
Fill
.
.
.
Subjects
will
also be
asked to report their perceptions of the relative
importance of the various tasks.
GAME REVIEW
-
QUESTION
2
The order
in which people perform tasks does not necessarily correspond to the
importance of the various task.
to 9
Please rate the tasks on a scale from
according to your estimate of their influence on the personhours required to
complete a production order.
(A task which you believe to have no effect on
production efficiency would be rated 0.
A task with the greatest effect
possible would be rated 9.)
The following ratings reflect my perception of the tasks' importance in
determining the number of personhours needed to complete a production
order.
Select employees for the most difficult tasks
Select employees for the tasks which were estimated to require the most
.
hours
.
the tasks for which one particular employee was clearly the most
suited
Assign a worker to the first task on the production order
Assign the first employee on the roster to a task
Fill
.
.
.
45
GAME REVIEW
(I
-
know these are tedious.
QUESTION
3.
Please bear with me.)
Please rate the relative effectiveness of the folowing
overall performance of the Special Order Department.
your reaction falls between levels).
1
= Significantly
3 =
5 =
strategies on the
(Use even numbers if
Decreases Performance.
Somewhat Decreases Performance.
No Effect on Performance.
Somewhat Increases Performance.
7 =
9 = Significantly
1.
GOAL
Increases Performance.
Assigning difficult (i.e., 75% of standard) goals to most or
all
employees
Assigning average (i.e., estimated) goals to most or all employees
Assigning do-your-best goals to most or all employees
4. Assigning easy (i.e.
125% of standard) goals to most or all employees
5. Not setting goals for most or all employees
6. Setting difficult goals for good performers
7. Setting difficult goals for poor performers
8. Setting difficult goals for experienced workers
9. Setting do-your-best goals for good performers
10. Setting do-your-best goals for poor performers
2.
3.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
GAME REVIEW
(This
is
-
QUESTION
4
the next to last screen.)
Please rate the relative effectiveness of the folowing FEEDBACK strategies on
the overall performance of the Special Order Department.
(Use even numbers
your reaction
between levels).
falls
= Significantly Decreases Performance.
1
3 = Somewhat Decreases Performance.
5 = No Effect on Performance.
7 = Somewhat Increases Performance.
9 = Significantly Increases Performance.
Providing feedback to most or all employees
Discussing production (but not providing feedback) with most or all
employees
3. Providing feedback and discussing production methods with most or all
employees
4. Not providing feedback or discussing production methods with most or
all employees
5. Discussing production methods with new employees only
6. Discussing production methods with poor performers only
7. Discussing production methods with good performers only
8. Providing feedback to good performers only
9. Providing feedback to poor performers only
10. Providing feedback to experienced workers only
1.
.
2.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
46
if
GAME REVIEW
-
(Last screen!
QUESTION
5
Thank you.)
Please rate the relative effectiveness of the various REWARD strategies on the
overall performance of the Special Order Department.
(Use even numbers if
your reaction falls between levels).
1
3
5
7
9
=
Significantly Decreases Performance.
=
Somewhat Decreases Performance.
No Effect on Performance.
Somewhat Increases Performance.
=
=
= Significantly
Increases Performance.
Providing no rewards to any employees
Providing moderate rewards to most or all employees
3. Providing high rewards to most or all employees
4. Providng high rewards to good performers
5. Providing high rewards to average performers
6. Providing high rewards to poor performers
7. Providing high rewards to good performers, moderate rewards to average
performers, and no rewards to poor performers
1.
.
2.
.
.
.
.
.
.
47
Table
1
STUDIES MEASURING TWO OR MORE STEPS IN THE PROCESS
BY WHICH GOALS INFLUENCE PERFORMANCE
OR INCLUDING TWO MEASURES OF ACTION PLANNING
Study
McCaul, Hinsz,
E.
McCaul, 1987
Goal
Mento,
Cartledge, &
Locke, 1980
Goal
acceptance,
personal
commitment
goal
Time spent
studying
No
Effort:
Yes
number
of
rows
attempted
(correlated
.92
and .98
with
performance)
Motowidio,
Loehr, &
Goal
Goal
specificity
acceptance
Dunnette, 1978
(independent vari-
No
able)
Neale,
Northcraft, &
Earley, working
Effort:
# of
No
completed
agreements
Strategy: %
paper
integrative
agreements
Steers,
1975
Goal
Goal effort
specificity
(supervisor
No
rated)
Tatum, Nebeker,
Cooper, &
Riedel,
Goal level
(self report)
Work breaks
Yes
(observed)
1986
Terborg, 1976
Effort: % of
No
time spent
working
Strategy
used (self
report)
Wood
&
Bandura, 1989
Self-set
goals
Number
of
Yes
decisions on
which
subject
changed one
factor
Wood, Bandura,
& Bailey,
Self-set
goals
Number
of
decisions on
which
unpublished
subject
changed one
factor
49
Yes
Table
2
STUDIES MEASURING THE EFFECT OF GOALS ON
TASKS OF VARYING COMPLEXITY
Study
Earley,
Lee, &
Reanalysis of
Earley,
Hanson,
Hanson, and
1989
Lee,
1986
Performance, goal
specificity and
difficulty, job
experience, job
level
Frost
£•
Mahoney,
in reading
passage.
Jigsaw puzzle.
1976
Hirst,
Identification
of wrong word
1988
Resource
allocation
task, minimal
Performance, goal
specificity, goal
difficulty, goal
acceptance,
-
complex task,
improved the
performance of
experienced
workers
Quantitative goals
led to better
performance on
puzzle.
Goal specificity,
task order,
intrinsic motivation
Quantitative goal
increased
motivation for
r>imple task,
decreased
motivation for
complex task.
Simple versus
difficult
a
goal setting
performance
interval frequency
versus
extensive
interdependence
Huber, 1985
On
maze
heuristic
Goal commitment,
arousal,
Complex task:
quantitative goal
performance
reduced
performance,
task
affected strategy.
Simple task:
quantitative goal
did not affect
performance.
Jackson &
Zedeck,
1982
1)
Model
Lego
- one model
versus five
building.
models.
2) Estimation
of carpet for
floor plan simple versus
Goal level,
evaluation context,
task order,
performance,
satisfaction, task
perception, effort
(measured, not
reported; no effect
on performance)
complex
calculation
Wood,
Bandura, &
Bailey,
press
in
Managerial
simulation
versus 8
production
functions
Goal level,
-
3
efficacy,
self-
goal
acceptance, self
set goal,
analytic
strategy,
performance
51
Goal level did
not influence
1)
performance on
either simple or
complex task.
Goal level
influenced
2)
performance on
both simple and
complex task
Goal level did not
affect performance
of complex task.
FIGURE
1
A SIMPLIFIED MODEL OF THE KEY COGNITIVE PROCESSES
BY WHICH GOALS INFLUENCE PERFORMANCE
EXTERNALLY IMPOSED GOAL
GOAL COMPREHENSION
GOAL ACCEPTANCE
ACTION OR STRATEGY
PLANNING
PERFORMANCE
52
FIGURE 2
HYPOTHESIZED STRENGTH OF RELATIONSHIPS AMONG TASK COMPEXITY,
GOAL TYPES AND STEPS BY WHICH GOALS INFLUENCE PERFORMANCE
Simple Task
SIMPLE
GOAL
Complex Task
GOAL
SYSTEM
SIMPLE
GOAL
GOAL COMPREHENSION
GOAL
SYSTEM
GOAL COMPREHENSION
Perceived goal difficulty
Self-ef f icacy
Perceived goal difficulty
Self- efficacy
GOAL ACCEPTANCE
GOAL ACCEPTANCE
USE OF STORED
ACTION PLAN
CREATION OF
NEW ACTION
PLAN
USE OF STORED
ACTION PLAN
CREATION OF
NEW ACTION
PLAN
BETTER
PERFORMANCE
POORER
PERFORMANCE
POORER
PERFORMANCE
BETTER
PERFORMANCE
Note:*
*
?
?
*
==^=
?
indicates a weak relationship
indicates a strong relationship
indicates an unJcnown relationship
Note: The distinction between use of stored action plans and creation of
new action plans is attributable to a model by Wood and Locke (forthcoming
53
FIGURE
3
RESEARCH DESIGN
Goal
Type
SIMPLE GOAL
NonQuantitative
GOAL SYSTEM
Quantitative
Situation:
SIMPLE
COMPLEX
4
0/?
L
/
54
NonQuantitative
Quantitative
"'
IJ-
Date Due
Lib-26-67
3
=IOaO
0072676T
b