Motivation and Emotion

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 75–86 | Cite as

Effects of participative vs assigned goals and feedback in a multitrial task

  • Mary C. Kernan
  • Robert G. Lord
Article

Abstract

A dynamic multitrial perspective on goal setting was adopted in order to investigate the effects of both goals (assigned vs participative) and goal-discrepant performance feedback on subsequent goal commitment and performance. Eighty subjects were initially assigned to either an assigned or participative goal condition, and performed a multitrial task with all subjects receiving goal discrepant performance feedback following the first task trial. Assigned rather than participative goal setting led to higher goal commitment, and large goal/feedback discrepancies led to greater reductions in subsequent goals. Because of these goal changes, the ability of initial goals to predict performance decreased over trials. However, when goal commitment, which reflects revised goals, was also considered, the ability to predict performance actually increased over trials. A moderating effect for need achievement was obtained such that higher-need achievers were more goal committed and performed better under participative goal setting than low-need achievers. Discussion focused on the practical and theoretical importance of a dynamic goal-setting perspective in explaining and predicting responses to goals and feedback systems.

Keywords

Social Psychology Great Reduction Goal Setting Feedback System Goal Condition 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45 1017–1028.Google Scholar
  2. Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive influence in cognitive motivation.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38 92–113.Google Scholar
  3. Bassett, G. A. (1979). A study of the effects of task goal and schedule choice on work performance.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 24 202–227.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, G. K., & Gelink, M. (1978).Short employment tests. New York: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, D. J. (1984). The effects of goal-contingent payment on the performance of a complex task.Personnel Psychology, 37 23–40.Google Scholar
  6. Campion, M. A., & Lord, R. G. (1982). A control systems conceptualization of the goal-setting and changing process.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30 265–287.Google Scholar
  7. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981).Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory approach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. Earley, P. C., & Kanfer, R. (1985). The influence of component participation and role models on goal acceptance, goal satisfaction, and performance.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36 378–390.Google Scholar
  9. Erez, M. (1977). Feedback: A necessary condition for the goal setting-performance relationship.Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 624–627.Google Scholar
  10. Erez, M., & Kanfer, F. H. (1983). The role of goal acceptance in goal setting and task performance.Academy of Management Review, 8 454–463.Google Scholar
  11. Erez, M., & Zidon, I. (1984). Effect of goal acceptance on the relationship of goal difficulty to performance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 69–78.Google Scholar
  12. Erez, M., Earley, P. C., & Hulin, C. L. (1985). The impact of participation on goal acceptance and performance: A two-step model.Academy of Management Journal, 28 50–66.Google Scholar
  13. Feather, N. T. (1961). The relationship of persistence at a task of expectation of success and achievement related motives.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63 552–561.Google Scholar
  14. Hannan, R. L. (1975).The effects of participation in goal setting on goal acceptance and performance: A laboratory experiment. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  15. Heilman, M. E., Hornstein, H. A., Cage, J. H., & Herschlag, J. K. (1984). Reactions to prescribed leader behavior as a function of role perspective: The case of the Vroom-Yetton model.Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 50–60.Google Scholar
  16. Hom, H. L., & Murphy, M. D. (1985). Low need achievers' performance: The positive impact of a self-determined goal.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11 275–285.Google Scholar
  17. Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations.Journal of Applied Psychology, 64 349–371.Google Scholar
  18. Janz, T. (1982). Manipulating subjective expectancy through feedback: A laboratory study of the expectancy-performance relationship.Journal of Applied Psychology, 67 480–485.Google Scholar
  19. Latham, G. P., & Steele, T. P. (1983). The motivational effects of participation versus goal setting on performance.Academy of Management Journal, 26 406–417.Google Scholar
  20. Latham, G. P., & Yukl, G. A. (1976). Effects of assigned and participative goal setting on performance and job satisfaction.Journal of Applied Psychology, 61 166–171.Google Scholar
  21. Lewin, K., Dembo, T., Festinger, L., & Sears, P. S. (1944). Level of aspiration. In J. McV. Hunt (Ed.),Personality and the behavior disorders. New York: Ronald Press.Google Scholar
  22. Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969–1980.Psychological Bulletin, 90 125–152.Google Scholar
  23. Lord, R. G., & Hanges, P. J. (1987). A control systems model of organizational motivation: Theoretical and applied implications.Behavioral Science, 32 161–178.Google Scholar
  24. Matsui, T., Okada, A., & Inoshita, O. (1983). Mechanism of feedback affecting task performance.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31 114–122.Google Scholar
  25. Matsui, T., Okada, A., & Kakuyama, T. (1982). Influence of achievement need on goal setting, performance, and feedback effectiveness.Journal of Applied Psychology, 67 645–648.Google Scholar
  26. Mehrabian, A. (1968). Male and female scales of tendency to achieve.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 28 493–502.Google Scholar
  27. Mehrabian, A., & Bank, L. (1978). A questionnaire measure of individual differences in achieving tendency.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38 475–478.Google Scholar
  28. Taylor, M. S., Fisher, C. D., & Ilgen, D. R. (1984). Individuals' reactions to performance feedback in organizations: A control theory perspective. In K. Rowland & J. Ferris (Eds.),Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 2). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary C. Kernan
    • 1
  • Robert G. Lord
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Administrative Sciences, Graduate School of ManagementKent State UniversityKent
  2. 2.The University of AkronUSA

Personalised recommendations