DIRECTING EFFECTIVE BEHAVIOR THROUGH
GOAL SETTING
By Walter O. Einstein
ABSTRACT
This article presents an argument that organizations desiring success must get involved in
defining their role in the dynamic environment where they do business. Goal setting is the way to do it.
Goal setting also is a motivational technique that works to promote not only productivity but also
satisfaction. A systems approach and contingency view is presented to enable individual organizational
leaders to recognize that their place in the scheme of things does matter. There are "different strokes for
different folks!" Two extremes on the continuum of organizational processes are explored and identified. It
is suggested that these two extremes are not good and bad, but different. Goal setting, as an
organizational process is examined from a closed, mechanistic point of view and then from an open,
organic point of view.
INTRODUCTION
The Cheshire cat is having an interesting
conversation with Alice, let's tune in:
Alice: "Would you tell me, please which way I ought
to go from here?"
The Cat: "That depends a good deal on where you
want to get to!"
Alice: "I don't much care where."
The Cat: "Then it doesn't matter which road you
take."
Lewis Carroll had it right in his classic story,
Alice in Wonderland. And so do many owners and
managers, or do they? "If you don't know where
you are going, it doesn't matter how or when you get
there." Another view might be: "Even a blind
warthog will come up with an acorn occasionally."
Figure 1. Alice and the Cheshire Cat
In a classic interview with the President and Owner of a highly technical
manufacturing concern, I was not surprised that the following dialog took place during a
meeting to determine if I could help create a total quality management environment in the
firm.
CEO: "I am looking to improve my overall productivity by
involving my managers and technical staff in decisions.
Can you tell me, please which way I ought to go from here?"
Author: "That depends a good deal on specifically
what you want to do.”
CEO: "I don't much care what happens, It's just important to do something.
Productivity is falling. Costs are too high. My customers are leaving. I don't know what
to do."
Author: "How do you measure these things?"
CEO: "Measure them?"
Author: "Yes, you must have performance standards as part of your strategic plan and a
clear notion how these relate to your organization's goals."
CEO: "Performance standards? A strategic plan? Goals?"
Author: "I see, without these tools it doesn't matter which road you take."
Just as expectancy theory can serve as an integrative view of motivation, so can
goal setting provide the necessary focus to help achieve organizational and personal
success. Setting goals can help individuals and entire organizations identify ways to meet
their needs. Accomplishing goals can also be reinforcing. In these ways goal setting
encourages individuals to exert effort to perform better. And further, they recognize that
better performance leads to better rewards and success.
How is success measured? Many people view success as the paramount
ingredient of organizational effectiveness. However one measures success personally,
success is the progressive realization of worthwhile pre-determined personal goals. It is
progressive realization, therefore a journey rather than a destination. It is worthwhile,
because the act of goal setting means that the goal setter has made a commitment to act
toward certain desirable outcomes. Success is predetermined, in that even a ship without
a rudder will occasionally arrive at a desirable port, but a ship that is steered with a plan
(or goal) will make the desired port way more often than not. Success is predetermined
because success, as luck, is the residual of design. It is personal, because an employee is
likely to accept a goal as his or her own or try to accomplish it if the person takes
ownership of it. Success, then, is a journey toward some desired end state or future
condition which the individual or organization strives to achieve. In this sense, success
through goal setting requires missions, purposes, objectives, targets, quotas and
deadlines; essentially the future domain intended by goal setter(s). To have success,
people set goals and work hard to attain them. Goals are set at varying levels within an
organization and attained through people following a series of policy commitments
Goals, which any member of an organization can set, describe a desired future
state. Once established, goals can focus behavior and motivate individuals to achieve the
desired end-state. Examples of short term goals or objectives are cutting costs, reducing
absenteeism, increasing employee satisfaction, or changing the work climate. According
to a report from Edwin A. Lock's research, (1984, 1990) in 90 percent of the reported
studies, goal setting has had a positive effect on performance. For the purposes of
continuity with E. A. Locke's work, goals and objectives may be used inter-changeably.
Long term goals, however, are generally defined as “official or operative,” somewhat
vague desired end states or aims; whereas, objectives are specific, measurable,
achievable, realistic, and much more time specific tasks or targets.
Goals can vary in three ways: (1) clarity, (2) difficulty, and (3) acceptance. The
clarity, of goals refers to the extent to which their accomplishment is observable,
achievable, and measurable. “Reducing absenteeism by 20 percent” is a highly specific
objective for a manager; “developing subordinates” is a much less specific and therefore
is a goal. Goal difficulty, or the level of performance desired, can also vary significantly.
A salesperson might set an objective to open ten new accounts per month, or one hundred
new accounts; the first objective might be easy, the second extremely difficult. Third,
individuals’ acceptance of stated goals, or their commitment to accomplishing the goals
may vary. Personal acceptance is influenced by not only participation in goal setting,
but by the authority who sets the goals whether done unilaterally or collaboratively. The
existence of peer pressure to accomplish goals; the values, incentives, and rewards
associated with goal performance; the person's expectancy of success; and the existence
of any self-administered rewards for goal accomplishment all contribute to making goal
setting a motivational process that really works!
What goals do? Terreberry (1968) theorizes that organizational change is
increasingly externally induced and that other organizations are increasingly influential in
setting patterns for change. She further states that if an organization is to survive in an
environment of externally induced change then the organization must become adaptable
to its changing environment. Adaptive goals enable the organization to survive,, function
and grow in the environment of its existence. They help determine the technologies of
the transformation process, they set a basis for the direction of organizational effort, goals
affect organizational structure, leadership style, climate, motivation and behavior.
Management functions are directly involved with organizational goals. The chief
executive, operating at the highest organizational level, normally establishes the broad longterm strategic goals that determine the organization's business and relate that business to the
environment. Middle management then translates broad strategic goals (official and broad
operative) into operational policy and goals that serve as a framework for action. Functional
management provides the means of control to measure the extent of accomplishment. All
levels deal with the means of satisfying the various interests and resolving conflicts that arise
as the organization heads successfully toward the goals it sets.
OFFICIAL GOALS, OPERATIVE GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES: A CONFUSING
TYPOLOGY
The concept of goals has several meanings; in the broadest and most general sense
goals can be divided into three distinct categories: official goals, operative goals, and
objectives. One of the major problems in understanding how organizations operate is in the
distinction between official and operative goals.
The official goals are the mission statement, often expressed in broad ambiguous
terms that justify the operation of an organization. For example, the official goal of a
university might be to provide high quality education and professional training to the people
in their region; it may be even more broadly put: “to serve the educational and technical
needs of the community through education, research and service.” Unfortunately, most
educational units and many businesses drag their mission statement out into a several
paragraphs of garbled trash that no one uses or understands. As a newly minted Lieutenant,
the author entered his first unit and on the bulletin board there appeared in cartoon form the
following statement: “The mission of the United States Air Force is to fly and to fight….and
don’t you forget it!” That official goal or mission statement is clear, challenging, and easily
acceptable to the organization’s members.
Charles Perrow (1961, 1970) was the first to state that the type of goals most
relevant to understanding organizational behavior are not the mission statement or the
official goals, but the operative goals that are embedded in major operating policies and
the daily decision of the people. Since these tasks determine the characteristics of those
who will dominate the organization, they will also shape operative goals. Operative
goals form the major goal structure, as they detail how the mission is to be carried out.
They have an important interaction influence on the organization, its people, and upon
the environment in which they exist. The effort toward goal directed behavior affects
the ability of an organization to receive inputs from the environment (other
organizations) and transform those inputs into value added goods or services as outputs.
Operative goals focus attention of organizational members, upon those actions that are
relevant to the organization, and legitimize its existence.
Typical Operative Goals





To anticipate our customers' requirements and provide them with the products which meet their
market, quality, and service needs.
To maintain our number one market positions through continued leadership in technology,
manufacturing, and marketing.
To maximize cash flow for continued debt reduction.
To focus on operating profit improvements through productivity programs and focused market
development.
To make the most of the talents of our people and provide them with the opportunity and
training to reach their full potential.
The importance of having clear operative goals has been noted over the years by
numerous organizational scholars (e.g., Drucker, 1974; Pearce II, 1982; David, 1989;
Skaggs & Butterfield, 1995; Einstein & Skaggs, 1998; Einstein & Skaggs, 1998a). The
reason for this importance lies in the fact that operative goals can provide the
organization with an understanding of what it is, what it wants to be, and how it is going
to get there. In so doing, operative goals provide a standard for measuring success.
They reflect more readily the uniqueness of organizations and the role of specific
influences within the more general technological and structural categories. Operative
goals are the product of a variety of influences, some of them enduring and some fairly
transient. To enumerate some of these influences: the personality of the top executives,
the history of the organization, its community environment, the norms and values of
other organizations with which it deals, the technology and structure of the organization
and ultimately the cultural setting.
The organization's objectives are the measurable desired results (or targets) to be
achieved, in a specific time. They are important in the planning process because they are
guides to developing specific actions to assure their fulfillment. They are important
motivators of people in organizations because, generally, people in organizations like to try to
achieve challenging objectives of the organization. Objectives are therefore useful as
standards for measuring performance. They may be expressed for every element of a
business considered important enough to be the subject of its strategic plans. There is no
formal classification of objectives nor of the number of objectives a company should have.
The common objectives found in long-range strategic planning systems are sales, profits,
margin, return on investment, and market share, simply put the common financial ratios are
used as measures of these objectives.
The number of possible objectives is very long, so each firm must choose those it
wishes to formulate. Objectives ought to be set for every activity that a firm thinks is
important and the performance of which it wishes to watch and measure. The following are
such areas: market standing, innovation, productivity, physical and financial resources,
profitability, manager performance and development, worker performance and attitude, and
public responsibility.
There are many different approaches to developing objectives. First, they should be
stated in specific terms to be able to lead and motivate, and the more concrete and specific
they are the more likely are they to have directive power. To say that "Our company seeks to
make a good profit," is far less powerful than to say, "Our profit objective is to make $4
million annually, three years from today." Second, objectives should be challenging.
Objectives that are far too high or far too low do not lead to action. Objectives should be
aggressive, require imagination, and hard work to achieve. Third, those who are to develop
means to achieve them should understand objectives. Fourth, objectives should correlate
with the mission and be mutually supporting, to the highest extent possible. For instance, if
the operative goal is to achieve a return on investment of 15 per cent, the profit contribution
objectives of various units are much more likely to be achieved if their objectives are linked
to that operative goal. For instance, a unit's objectives might be: increase sales to $2 million
in 2 years, raise gross profits to $0.5 million in 3 years, build modern facilities and operate
them at capacity over the next five years, and upgrade and maintain a skilled work force in
specified ways. These objectives might also be linked to lower organizational levels'
objectives. For example, an increase in sales might be sought by setting specific objectives
for market share, advertising expenditures, market penetration, product redesign, and research
and development in specific directions. Similarly, objectives might be set for achievement of
the operative goals for facilities, and for the work force. If the objectives are achieved, the
achievement of the dominant operative goals and the mission is inevitable.
SYSTEMS APPROACH AND CONTINGENCY VIEW
The systems approach and contingency views of organizations will supply the basis
of this paper's analysis and a framework from which basic opinions regarding the process
of goal setting are made. Kast and Rosenzweig (1985) define a system as “an organized
unitary whole composed of two or more interdependent parts, components or subsystems
and delineated by identifiable boundaries from its environmental suprasystem.” The
systems approach uses the physical, biological and social sciences as a broad frame of
reference and as a framework for the integration of modern organization theory. Kast and
Rosenzweig (1985) use the systems approach in their definition of an organization and
therefore a basis for its evaluation using the contingency view. They point out that, “An
organization is (1) a subsystem of its broader environment, and (2) goal-oriented;
composed of (3) a technical subsystem, (4) a structural subsystem, and (5) a psychosocial
subsystem; and coordinated by a managerial subsystem.”
Putting these ideas together, as a basis of analysis of organizations, describe the
contingency view. Kast and Rosenzweig (1985) state: “The contingency view of
organizations and their management . . . . seeks to understand the inter-relationships within
and among subsystems as well as between the organization and its environment and to
configurations of variables. It emphasizes the multivariate nature of organizations and
attempts to understand how organizations operate under varying conditions and in specific
circumstances. Contingency views are ultimately directed toward suggesting
organizational designs and managerial actions most appropriate for specific situations.”
A BRIEF HISTORY OF GOAL SETTING
During the 20th century social scientists and practicing managers have shown that
people work best when driven by goals that are known and understood by them. Early
management pioneers knew this intuitively and in 1912 Harrington Emerson presented the
idea as the first of his Twelve Principles of Efficiency (Emerson, 1960). He called goals
“clearly defined ideals.” The bulk of his article shows how great engineering works have
and are being accomplished because the manager has a clear idea of the outcome.
Emerson concludes with advice that is equally appropriate today: “…formulate
ideals, promulgate them throughout…post them everywhere, inoculate every official and
every employee with them…”
Throughout this century social scientists have developed theories of human
behavior that link motivation and goal setting. The mechanism that links these two is the
cognitive mind. Process theories developed since the 1960’s such as Vroom’s “VIE”
theory (Vroom, 1964); Porter and Lawler’s Expectancy theory (Porter & Lawler, 1968)
argue that people motivate themselves and guide their actions through planning
(forethought). They anticipate likely outcomes, set goals, and select courses of action
designed to realize valued outcomes of goal directed behavior.
Goal setting is essentially a process of defining the desired relationships between
an organization and its environment. Thompson and McEwen (1958) suggested that goals
are often set to establish a standard for appraising organizational performance, as such they
are viewed as a constant. They argue that goal setting is dynamic, if the environment
changes, so must the goals; further, goal setting is a similar process in any organization,
even those with manifestly different goals. While Thompson and McEwen argue that goal
setting is purposive but not necessarily rational, they support the thesis that goal setting is
essentially determining a relationship of the organization to the larger society. This, in
turn, becomes a question of what the society (or elements within it) wants done or can be
persuaded to support. Locke & Latham, (1984,1990) offer a clear summary and detailed
plan how goal setting makes a difference. They support challenging objectives planned to
integrate with the mission and operative goals.
These views of organizational goals imply that an organization is a quantity
composed of a single mind, indeed it is not, many human interests make up the
organization and influence the goal setting, process. Viewing the organization as an
input-transformation process-output system with environmental interfaces on both sides;
suppliers on the input side and users or consumers on the output side emphasizes the many
interest groups that are affected. If all these groups were served, I would suggest that the
organization would be counterproductive. The organization cannot be “all things to all
people,” nor does it act as though it was composed of one mind. Long ago Cyert and
March (1963) concluded that organizations do not have objectives; only people have
objectives (goals). Therefore, what we have been calling goals of the organization are, in
essence, no more than the negotiated consensus of the individuals who play major roles in
the organization's affairs. Thompson and McEwen (1958) suggested that goal setting is
influenced by the nature of the interaction and may be broadly classed as either
competitive or cooperative. These interactions or processes of adaptation frequently
modify the organization's own goals and require means for their accomplishment.
MOTIVATION AND GOAL SETTING
So far, this discussion has focused on two primary perspectives; first, the
environmental level and the constraints placed on the organization by society; second, the
organizational level and the goals of the organization as a system. Before the task
environment of goal setting is viewed from a mechanistic versus organic approach, a few
words must be said about motivation and goal setting. Searching through the many works
of Edwin A. Locke, et. al. from 1962 through the present date one finds that the major
contribution to the goal setting literature has to do with the importance of goal setting as a
means of stimulating a motivational force toward the accomplishment of the desired task.
Who's desired task? The decision-makers choice of tasks Locke would argue. Locke
(1967) conducted three experiments to examine the relationship between deviation of
outcome from expectation of success and affect on goal seeking tasks. His findings
indicate that people achieve a greater degree of satisfaction in performing a task with a
clearly defined goal; and further, the more difficult the goal becomes the higher the
individual rates his satisfaction upon reaching that goal. Locke summarizes these results
with the conclusion that if the subjects wanted to perform the experiment's task assignment
that it was success in relation to aspiration, rather than success in relation to expectation,
that determined affect. One can argue that not only do people derive satisfaction from
successful goal attainment and the more difficult the expectation of success the greater the
satisfaction; but also that people hold certain values of what is good and desirable as
standards by which they are influenced in their choice of actions. If people are permitted
to make a contribution toward the nature of the goal, they will be more inclined to raise
their expectation of success, thus work harder to achieve the goal. The author believes
people seek to support those things that they help create. Put another way, those people in
the boat with you will not dri1l holes in the bottom of the boat.
Bryan and Locke (1966) began work on a series of experiments that hypothesize
goal setting as a means of increasing motivation. They showed through a series of
laboratory experiments that specific hard goals produce a higher performance level than a
goal of “do your best.” Hard goals yield less overall liking of the task and satisfaction than
easy goals; and that specific hard goals produce more interest in the task than “Do Best”
goals. Bryan and Locke's experiments show the value of goal setting as a means of
motivation. They point out rather vividly that employees with low motivation will become
more productive if they are given a goal. Could attitude and performance be linked to
participation in the process of goal setting?
In more recent work, studying the relationship between goal setting, satisfaction,
and performance Locke (1970) and fellow researchers at the University of Maryland and
the American Institute for Research compiled sufficient date to support a task motivation
model which suggests: (a) the most immediate, direct motivational determinant of task
performance is the individual's goal or intention; (b) external incentives affect action. . . .
(c) affective reaction stems from an estimating relationship between the existents one
perceives and one's values or standards. Locke's, (1975) work on goals broadens his earlier
view in that he feels that in order to achieve values (and therefore survive) people must be
able to predict and control the outcomes of their actions. In attaining goals people set for
themselves they develop and reinforce the belief that they may pursue and attain personal
values, thereby becoming effective.
The previous section suggests that organizations have multiple goals and that these
goals comprise a set determined by both external environmental influences and internal
social forces. The organization has substantial discretion concerning goals and to the
means for their accomplishment which it attempts to satisfy within its transformation
process. However, the organization must operate within the constraints imposed by
environmental forces and the need to maintain the contributions of internal participants
THE SYSTEMS CONTINUA
Some organizations behave in a manner that is somewhat closed and others behave in
a manner that is more like the view expressed by general systems theory. A series of
continua may be displayed that characterize organizational behavior from one extreme to
the other. Although no organization exactly fits along one pattern or the other, these
continua are valuable as models to identify open and closed characteristics. The continua
that follows, displays some examples.
"MECHANISTIC" ORGANIZATIONS
ORGANIZATIONS
"ORGANIC"
Stable.............................................. ENVIRONMENT ........................................... Turbulent
Mechanistic ....................................... STRUCTURE ................................................. Organic
Directive ..................................... LEADER BEHAVIOR ..................................... Permissive
Routine ............................................ TECHNOLOGY ............................................ Dynamic
Formal, Hierachical ................................ TASKS ............................................ Flexible, Open
Centralized ..............................................GOALS............................................... Participative
(Means Oriented
(Ends Oriented)
Figure 2. Systems Continua
Any discussion of assembling various continua to identify the extremes that organizations may
employ should emphasize that the end points are descriptive and not absolute. As in leadership,
for example, it seems obvious that various styles are useful and there is a situational issue that
dictates location on any continuum at any one time.
This article's specific objective is to explore goal settings,, as a management practice in
the two environments; somewhat closed, mechanistic and open, organic. Toward this end, it is
useful to describe how each continuum flows from one end toward the other. Tannenbaum and
Schmidt (1958) display a range of leader behavior on a continuum that moves from one extreme
to the other, permitting the identification of the various behaviors a leader might employ. Such a
diagram is useful in describing any of the continua in shown in Figure 2. Goal setting is
displayed in this manner in Figure 3, that follows.
Participative Goal Setting
Centralized Goal Setting
Use of position authority to set
organizational goals and
objectives.
Use of group participation
to set organizational goals and objectives.
Authority sets
goals,
announces them
Members set
goals,
Authority
approves
Both suggest
goals, both
involved
Authority
suggests goals,
members
accept
Authority
suggests goals,
members
accept
Figure 3. A Goal Setting Continuum (Following Systems Theory)
The same technique does not work in every situation. Just as various leadership styles are
effective if the leader diagnoses the situation correctly, so it is with goal setting. The authority
must diagnose the follower’s readiness. Einstein (1995) presents a diagnostic leadership model
that follows systems (situational) theory. He argues that a leader should use a directive, leader
centered style with followers who are not skilled, have unclear goal focus, and lack the
motivational effort to accomplish the organization’s primary tasks. As the diagnosis of follower
readiness shows that some increase in the combination of skill, goal focus, and motivation the
leader shifts toward a more participative style. Eventually, the leader’s efforts should pay off and
the role of the leader shifts from one of control to one of involvement and shared activity.
Similarly, the descriptions along the goal setting continuum display a range of goal setting
behaviors and values associated with their location ranging from (left) Authority centered, certain
and determinate toward the (right) group centered, less authority centered, somewhat uncertain
and indeterminate. From (left) limited to few, often single, participants with fixed well-defined
objectives to (right) relatively many participants that have external relationships with varied not
clearly defined objectives. From (left) efficient, stable clear-cut constraints to (right) multiple,
variable constraints.
There may be an implicit suggestion that closed systems thinking is bad and open system
thinking is good, however, no explicit rationale exists to support that view. With subordinates
who are less capable, etc., during crisis or uncertainty, and where quick response is required
decisions and goal setting should be made by a centralized, top level authority as described on
the left side of the continuum. At the same time, during crisis or uncertainty, action should not
be made in a vacuum. Capable subordinates with a high sense of goal focus can be of great help
when the chips are down. Both types of goal setting, open and closed, represent a rational form
for an organization to employ, both may be created and used to create value added goods or
services within their input - transformation process - output mechanism. Within a defined
environment both can and do exist. What follows is a description of each and the behavioral
assumptions that make them work.
MECHANISTIC GOAL SETTING
Burns and Stalker (1973) describe a mechanistic organization as one which functions best
in stable conditions characterized by:
 Specialization of functions where problems and tasks are broken down (stable, inflexible,
well defined); individual tasks and purposes which are distinct from those of the organization;
 Functional efforts are toward improvement of means rather than ends (process not
objectives);
 Behavior is dictated by written instructions and decisions rendered by those in rational legal
authority (specific one best way" controlled by authority position);
 Precisely defined roles and the rights and obligations attached thereto (fixed roles based on
hierarchical location);
 Insistence on loyalty to superiors (rewards are mostly extrinsic);
 Hierarchical supervision (highly specific managerial role);
 hierarchical control, structure, and communications (decisions are made at high levels);
 Interaction between members is vertical (formal interpersonal relations between supervisor
and subordinate);
 Prestige is attached to internal knowledge rather than cosmopolitan experience and skill (its
not what you know, but who you know).
Organizational goals will be established only after there has been an intensive analysis of
the decision making characteristics, psychosocial characteristics and the alliances have been
established; then it is possible to indicate the range of the goal set continuum within which they
will vary. Perrow (1961) argues “that if we know something about the major tasks of the
organization and the characteristics of its controlling elite, we can predict its goals (and practices
in setting them) in general terms.”
The closed mechanistic approach has its roots in the philosophy of Frederick W. Taylor,
Henri Fayol and Max Weber who held as a common belief the view that organizations are
established to facilitate the achievement of organizational productivity by reducing the
uncertainty while performing various organizational activities. Achievement of satisfaction
is generally considered to be a secondary purpose and is associated as a goal only as a
means of maximizing productivity. It is not an end in itself. Productivity is measured by
applying rational economic criteria to the input - transformation process - output
mechanism in an effort to increase the value added goods or services that establish the
broad stated goals of the organization. Operative goals clarify the uncertainties that center
around organizational issues such as: how should the tasks be performed? In what order
should they be scheduled? How should the needed resources be allocated and acquired? In
what manner should the transformation process function? How many, what quality, at what
price should the goods or services be delivered to the user? Focus of operative goals is on
planning and control rather than implementation and individuals. Shrode & Voich (1974)
see three basic assumptions that underlie this philosophy, it has an economic-technical
emphasis. They assert that the organization is:



An economic entity,
A set of physical processes,
A network of decisions.
Viewing the organization as an economic entity assumes that measures of success toward
organizational goals are directed toward profit maximization or expense minimization.
Goal setting is done at high hierarchical levels with a downward focus using economic
criteria and the goal setter assumes that organizational behavior is directed toward the view
that the organization members are motivated by extrinsic economic incentives to maximize
effort.
Because the organization is seen to have a generally stable environment, mechanistic
structure and directive leadership it is seen as a set of physical processes that can be clearly
defined, exactly measured and evaluated using a quantifying technique such as the
scientific method. Physical processes focus upon structure and technology as a means to
the ends. These processes are rather routine and not subject to Perrow's “exceptions and
unanalyzable search.” Therefore, a single or few highly placed individuals are better able to
set operative goals and see that they are carried out.
The organization is also assumed to be a network of decisions, which should be made in a
logical, rational manner by the responsible hierarchically, placed individual(s) with the
authority to make them. To paraphrase Emerson: They, (the decision makers, goal setters)
should promulgate their ideals throughout the plant, post them everywhere, inoculate every
employee with them . . . because they are important.
In an environment that is viewed as closed and mechanistic the process (means) is often as
important as the goal (end). Although the concept that certain goals can be achieved with
different initial conditions and in different ways (equifinality) is generally associated with
open adaptive systems. It is appropriate in a closed mechanistic system as well. The
distinction when looking at closed mechanistic organizations is the importance placed on
the process enroute to the goal. Closed system mechanistic organizations tend to set goals
that lead toward efficient performance, stability and maintenance of the system. The
pervasive values that affect the nature of the goals that are set include efficiency,
predictability, security, and risk aversion.
Instructions associated with how goals should be set includes injunctions such as keep
them simple, make them long range (stable), be specific and clear (well defined). The
means-end orientation of organizational participants places emphasis on the means
(process) in the manner of the following quotation: "The way he does what he does, gets
into the way of what he does." Recent organizational behavior research (Locke and
Latham., 1984) indicates that not only are goals important but also the manner in which
they are set makes a difference in the measure of organizational success. If humanistic
criteria are added to the economic criteria then success is measured in terms of satisfaction
and economic performance.
ORGANIC APPROACHES TO GOAL SETTING
Burns and Stalker (1973) describe an open organic form of organization as one
which functions best in an environment of changing conditions characterized by:
 Contributing knowledge, skill and experience to the Objectives of the organization (gestalt);
 Adjustment and continual redefinition of tasks through interaction with other (cooperation,
team work and conflict resolution through problem solving);
 The shedding of "responsibility" as a limited field of rights, obligations and methods (the
problem finder is the problem solver);
 A network structure of control, authority and communication (interpersonal relationships);
 Omniscience not viewed as a sole right of the organization's head (anybody can have a
"good" idea);
 Lateral rather than vertical communication (informal interpersonal relationships);
 Content of communication is advice and information (instructions and decisions are
made ubiquitously);
 Importance and prestige is affiliative and achievement oriented (people are inner
directed);
 Commitment is to the task (goal oriented behavior is toward ends not means).
People in an open organic organization recognize the importance environmental
influences play upon the goal setting process. They direct their attention on the influences
and fluctuation the environment has upon it. Environmental conditions indicate that
increased flexibility requires that the organization move toward looser integration,
communication in a less stable (turbulent) environment.
An open organic organization is well equipped to solve problems and set goals by a
combination of means toward specific ends. Behavior is goal directed. Irregularities and
conflict are treated as opportunities rather than problems. There is little or no effort spent to
avoid these. Environmental monitoring systems are implicit or explicit as a means of
providing feedback to enable the organization to maintain homeostasis and dynamic
equilibrium.
Organizations have two mechanisms which are often in conflict, suggest Kast and
Rosenzweig (1985); first, in order to direct its efforts toward specific goals it must maintain a
sense of equilibrium and employ a maintenance mechanism to ensure that the organization,
its subsystems and its environment are in balance. Second, adaptive methods and
mechanisms enable the organization to provide dynamic equilibrium that changes over time.
These countering forces create tension, stress and conflict that are natural and not necessarily
dysfunctional.
Open adaptive organizations are based upon assumptions about people that reflect
varying values and nature. I view this concept and the assumptions upon which it is based as
a principle difference between the closed mechanistic philosophy and that of open organic
organizations. That does not mean those organizational goals and individual goals need
necessarily be compatible or incompatible, simply that both exist. As does conflict regarding
their resolution. Open organic organizations have, by definition, adaptive processes for
conflict resolution. Shrode and Voich (1974) see three basic assumptions that underlie this
philosophy, it has a psycho-social emphasis. They assert that the organization is:



A place where work is quantifiable and measurable,
Made up of exceedingly complex people,
A network of stocks and flows.
These views may best be expressed in an open organic organization by the author’s
favorite quote: "Unless I perceive that you can satisfy my needs you cannot influence my
behavior."
The overall goal of an open organic organization is to facilitate the achievement of
both productivity and satisfaction through an integration of organizational effort. The open
organic approach has its roots in the philosophy of Elton Mayo, Abraham Maslow, and
Douglas McGregor, as well as the systems approach and contingency views of today. Here
the common thread is the view that an organization is an input-output network in which value
is generated to achieve integration toward productivity and satisfaction.
Productivity and satisfaction are measured by applying both economic criteria of
effectiveness and efficiency as well as humanistic criteria such as:






Participation - an organization is effective to the degree people are involved;
Power Sharing - power is distributed through the organization;
Role Flexibility - the opportunity to learn new skills;
Personal Growth - the opportunity to learn new skills;
Freedom of Choice - most fundamental;
Self Determination - choose your own goals.
The basic assumptions being that goals are highly diversified, interdependent and
uncertain for people and organizations. Goals related to the nature of work assume that the
flow through the transformation process can be measured and related to the input and value
added output and thereby measure success toward specific production goals.
In discussing the nature of goal setting practices appropriate for an open organic
organization, one can best come into focus by answering the question: How do people make
action choices among alternatives? The answer might be through involvement, participation
and autonomy. The things one believes in, the values one holds and the general assumptions
made regarding activities and people in the organization, directly influence the nature of the
goal setting process. I support contingency theory regarding goal setting as an open, adaptive
organic process that requires involvement of the individual in the design of the job and in the
expected results. It requires the manager's ability to enlist the skills of all people in the
mutual participation and decision making within the organization. It also requires people to
have a sense of autonomy and freedom to manage within the job. At the core of the open
organic organization is a set of beliefs about people that views them somewhat differently
than they are viewed in an organization that is viewed as closed and mechanistic.
To take some liberties with McGregor's (1960) classic Theory "Y" view, these beliefs
surround the philosophy of an open organic organization in the following manner:
 Most people possess needs for power, achievement and affiliation in some mix that can
best be satisfied in an environment rich in autonomy, participation and involvement.
 People will work harder for complex challenging goals that they help create. They
will manifest greater commitments toward risky goals if they can share in their creation.
 People want to satisfy their needs in the work environment as an expression of their
knowledge, competence and creativity.
 Complex, challenging environments of survival and growth require people with these
traits.
Research by Bryan & Locke (1967), Carrol & Tosi (1973), Locke & Latham (1984,
1990) along with a host of others has shown that goal setting practices stimulate both
participation and satisfaction. People want to set challenging objectives, they possess the
capability to do so, and become committed to their accomplishments. Attitudes fostered in
an environment of participation, involvement and autonomy leads to growth in capacity,
stimulation of creativity, aspirations of performance that lead to success. Such an
environment can be created and sustained by an organization that adopts an apropriate
philosophy of goal setting. But it is not easy.
OK, SO HOW DO WE SET GOALS?
Goal setting facilitates performance in four ways: it directs attention and action, it
mobilizes energy and effort, it increases persistence, and it motivates the development of
appropriate task strategies. Goals are most effective in producing high performance when
they are both specific and challenging. Even goals that can not be fully reached will lead to
high effort levels provided that partial success can be achieved and is rewarded. The
motivation to attain long-range operative goals can be facilitated by the setting of
shorter-term objectives.
Locke and Latham (1984,1990) support the idea that goal setting is a motivational
technique that works. They argue that goal setting plays a role in the success of many
motivational techniques, including scientific management, MBO, job enrichment,
organizational behavior modification, participation, System 4, competition, and the latest
management applications surrounding continuous improvement in quality. Thus, according
to Locke and Latham, goal setting is more than just a motivational technique; it is a core
motivational technique, one on that many others depend or work through. Any given
motivational technique will be effective to the degree that it generates or is associated with
the setting of specific, challenging goals and/or the degree to which it enhances commitment
to those goals.
Open system organic organizations orient their operative goals toward effective
performance, satisfaction of human interest, problem solving, innovation and growth. The
major values that create such a goal setting environment include effectiveness, adaptability,
responsiveness to environmental influences and the willingness of both supervisors and
subordinates to take risks. Top management normally assumes responsibility for setting the
stated goals and influences the process of setting operative goals that are multidimensional
and relevant. Instructions regarding how these goals are set are not single minded and clear
cut, thereby permitting a variety of needs to emerge and goals set to satisfy these needs. The
means-end orientation of organizational participants is placed on the end rather than the
means. As success is progressive realization of worthwhile predetermined goals and success
is a journey; the trip is as rewarding as the prize.
The implications, hopefully, are clear. Goal setting has meaning for the future well
being of the organization and the people. It is critical to use some present time and to
sacrifice immediate satisfaction in the interest of the future. Goal setting gives the
organization its future orientation. The clearest path toward a successful future is to integrate
goal setting into the organization. Integrating it in such a way that it fits with the other
continua used to examine organizations is important. If the organization exists in a placid
environment, has a mechanistic structure, employs a directive style of leader behavior,
consists of routine technology and performs formally established centrally controlled tasks
then means oriented, hierarchical goals would best suit the organization and its people. On
the other end of the continua (see Figure 2. and Figure 3.) wide spread ends oriented goals
using participative techniques to encourage performance and satisfaction would likely be
more appropriate.
In its broadest sense, miss-application is not goal setting at all. The traditional view,
still held by the majority of organizations, is to set up a unidirectional flow of goals that
originate from top management's stated goals and move from top downward where objectives
are clearly specified. In a closed mechanistic organization this process provides consistency
and ensures that lower level operative goals will rationally add up to the total organizational
goals. The predictability of this concept constitutes its attraction for mechanistic structured
organizations. But it does violate the assumptions of success in a more organic organization
where use of intrinsic rewards make up such a great part of the organizational climate.
Top-down goal setting, if misapplied, produces unrealistic impossible to accomplish goals.
In closed mechanistic organizations that claim to employ participative goal setting, for
example, the flow of operative goals is "said" to be directed from the bottom upward through
successive levels to the top (In fact, it is usually the other way around!). The sum of the
lower levels would then be the top-level goals. This confusion leads to misapplication when
different management levels get out of touch with each other and go in different directions.
Their aims become inconsistent. Additionally, it is clear to all in a mechanistic organization
that top executives are not passive receptors of what lower management choose to select.
Top management in both organic and mechanistic organizations has responsibility to other
stakeholders such as the board of directors, stockholders, the social controls of government,
unions, as well as their own ideas. Even if serendipity occurs, and the lower level goals "fall
into line," many organic organizations set goals that are inflationary and assume
improvement when the environment is not suited for growth and improvement. Research
(See Locke & Latham, 1990 for examples) bears out the view that lowered goals are almost
worse than no goals. Top management normally announces its budgetary cycle and new
goals simultaneously in terms of expansion, profit and sales in the light of information
regarding the general environmental conditions that are not universally understood or even
known. In both the closed mechanistic and open organic organization, reconciling goals with
policy and planning criteria is a continuing problem. The top can not abdicate its
responsibility to set the appropriate stage, nor can it abdicate its responsibility to recognize
the appropriate process, top-down or bottom-up in a manner that is consistent, coordinated
and clearly understood.
Finally, growing concern over social controls placed on American business
organizations by the government in an effort to promote the general welfare; and by unions to
"protect" the worker may reflect awareness of the escalating tension between the present and
the future. Organizations have been managed in many ways, but none too effectively without
a future orientation or the concern for human dignity and respect. In an ever-shrinking world
of limited resources, the management of complex socio-technical organizations requires a
binding of the past, present, and future through rational criteria, both economic and
humanistic, for setting goals. The stakes in the struggle between placid environments of the
past and the turbulence of the future are becoming higher, both success and failure are
established in the present, the accounting comes later. Setting goals does not guarantee
success, working smarter not harder toward them does. However no amount of smart work
will lead an organization or an individual toward a goal that is unknown. The journey toward
worthwhile predetermined goals that are known, shared and challenging is what is meant by
success. And that's fun!
REFERENCES
Bryan, J. F. & Locke, E. A. (1967). “Goal Setting as a Means of Increasing Motivation.”Journal
of Applied Psychology, Volume 31,Number 3.
Burns, T. & Stalker, G. M. (1973). “Mechanistic and Organic Systems” in Fremont E. Kast and
James E. Rosenzweig, Contingency Views of Organization and Management. Chicago:
Science Research Associates, Inc.
Carroll, S. J., Jr. & Tosi, H. L. (1973). “Management by Objectives: Application and Research.”
New York: The MacMillan Company.
Cyert, R. M. & March, J. (1976). “A Behavioral Theory of the Firm,” in George F. Weiland and
Robert A. Ulrich, Organizations: Behavior, Design and Change. Homewood, IL: Richard
D. Irwin, Inc.
David, F.R. (1989). How Companies Define Their Mission. Long Range Planning, 22, 90-97.
Drucker, P.F. (1974). Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, and Practices. New York: Harper &
Row.
Einstein, W. O. & Skaggs, B. C. (1998) “The Mission Plan as a Link Between Corporate Thought
and Action.” The American Society of Business and Behaviorial Sciences, Las Vegas, NV,
February.
Einstein, W. O. & Skaggs, B. C. (1998a). “Developing a Contingency Based Mission Plan: a
Sense-making Approach.” The Strategic Management Society, Orlando, FL, November.
Einstein, W. O. (1995). “The Challenge of Leadership: A Diagnostic Model of Transformational
Leadership.” The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship. Volume1,
Number 2.Winter 1995.
Emerson, Harrington, (1960)."The First Principle: Clearly Defined Ideals" in F. Harwood, (ed)
Classics in Management, New York: American Management Association.
Kast, F. E. & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1985). Organization and Management: A Systems Approach,
(4th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill,
Locke, E. A. (1967) "Relationship of Success Expectation to Affect on Goal Seeking Tasks,"
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, , Volume 7, Number 2.
Locke, E. A., Cartledge, N. & Knerr, C. S. (1970). “Studies of the Relationship Between
Satisfaction, Goal Setting, and Performance.” Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, Volume 5, 135-158.
Locke, E. A. (1975). “Personnel Attitudes and Motivation.” Annual Review of Psychology,
Volume 26, 457-507.
Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. (1984). “Goal Setting: A Motivational Technique That Works!”
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. (1990) A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Pearce, J. A . II. (1982). The Company Mission as a Strategic Tool. Sloan Management Review.
Spring, 15-24.
Perrow, C. (1961). “The Analysis of Goals in Complex Organizations.” American Sociological
Review, December, 54-866.
Perrow, C. (1970). “Organizational Analysis: A Sociological View.” Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole
Publishing Company.
Porter, L. W. & Lawler, E. E. (1968) Managerial Attitudes and Performance. Homewood, IL:
Irwin-Dorsey.
Skaggs, B. C., & Butterfield, K.D. (1995). The Effects of the Mission statement on corporate
Illegal Behavior, A Sensemaking Perspective. Proceedings of the International
Association for Business and Society.
Schein, E. H. (1970). “Organizational Psychology.” New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Shrode, W. A. & Voich, D. Jr. (1974). “Organization and Management: Basic Systems
Concepts.” (Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
Tannenbaum, R. & Schmidt, W. H. (1958). “How to Choose a Leadership Pattern.” Harvard
Business Review March-April, 95-101.
Terreberry, S. (1976). “The Evolution of Organizational Environments,” in W. R. Nord, ed.,
Concepts and Controversy In Organizational Behavior, 2nd ed., Santa Monica, CA:
Goodyear Publishing Company.
Thompson, J. D. & McEwen, W. J. (1958) “Organizational Goals and Environment:
Goal-Setting as an Interaction Process,” American Sociological Review. February, 23-31.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Vroom, Victor (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley.