Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
UCASFE
"
It..U;R
GS- 1
r/
9.
4.
SI
REDINSTRUCTIONS
COMPL.TG FoRM
(.
T
Tehna
Technical Report
GS-I
7.
AUTNOR(e)
I.
N00014-79-C-0680
College of Business A
College Park,-D-2=42-.
anagement.
Univ. of Md.
NR 170-890
12.
REPORT OATE
June 1.980
r'=
ninety (90)
Umr.LASSIFIED
I aOEC.ASII FPICA TION/ DOWNGRADING
S C I 4 EDU I
IS.
17.
DISTRIISUT.ON
eter
a.ed In Block 20. It different from Rwet,)
IELEC:TE
IS.
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
II.
>j
20.
LLJ
-J
L
Gaol setting
Task difficulty
Incentives
Rewards
Individual differences
Nced for achievement
Knowledge of Results
Feedback
Participation
Supportiveness
Self esteem
Neck
AIDSTMACT (Cmnltmnae an revri'ae aed. It necoeeaey ad Identity by bloc
.k'
e)
1473
,
'JAN")
EDITION OF I NOV
S/N 01 02.LF-.01 4-6601
,
'
IS OBSOLETE
.1
SECURITY CLASSIIICATION OF TWIS PAGE (lan
.4
Gnge,#)
UNCLASSIFIED
SgCURITV CL&ASS1rICATIOM Oi TmIS PACI so,.. Date Unfee..
1969-198
Edwin A.lLocke'
N. /Shaw!land
Karyll .f:
SUn,
A Aooeasion For"
UnLM.Aa..ed
P/Latham
Unive rs-y
Justifiation
bfVahh'gtr)n
B__
krvail and/or
DIst.
I~
special
,J
CHNCAL RET
LA
807
-
uK
"
'
041
/,,,-:_
Abstract
A review of both laboratory and field studies on the
effects of setting goals when performing a task found that:
specific~challenging goals lead to higher performance than
easy goals, "do your best" goals or no goals.
This is one
of the most robust and replicable findings in
the psychological
directing attention,
strategy development.
Goal setting is
most likely to
feedback
No reliable
setting studies,
__
'
1969-1980
Furman
consistent with
The academic
and Miller,
Galanter and
Management by Objectives,
industry
(see Odiorne,
1978,
for a 3ui'mary),
back to the
task performance.
II
(Bandura,
1977),
years
recent
1977).
(Locke,
proliferating so rapidly
1974)
1975).
It
a cognitive concept.
trying to accomplish,
is
A goal is
what
1969).
objective
series of actions);deadline
3
Earlier attemnpts of behaviorists to reduce concepts like
goal and purpose to physical events have been severely
criticized (e.g., see Locke, 1969, 1972).
Goal setting
then the regulating stimulus must be a mental event-ultimately the individual's personal goal.
The environment,
conscious goals.
We shall specifically
(Locke,1968) on behavior.
incentives
The main
are:
For example,
For example,
Thus it
is
For
simple addition),
but one is
In
Put
to be done,
the
is to be done.
(Kahneman,
1974; Shapira,
is problematic.
jto
%Till
:1
is set, etc.
Goal
simple goals.I
Thus far goal intensity has not been studied as such,
although a related concept, goal commitment, has been measured
in a number of experiments.
Relation of Goal Attributes to Performance
Goal Difficulty
with logging crews; Yukl and Latham (1978) with typists; and
a simulated field study by Bassett (1979).
In a separate
Bavelas (1978)
brainstorming,
Hann
(1975)
with a coding
(1980
task;
Kaplan (1972)
and
(1970)
using
iiI
7--
2 _ __
_ _ _ _ __
___
__
1!
9
with an energy conservation task, Erez (1977) with a clericalI
task, and Strang, Lawrence and Fowler (1978) witha
computation task all found that onily subjects who had high
goals and who received feedback regarding their performance
in celatior. to those goals during task performance or between
Bavelas
.50,1
10
Moreover,
ii
is
pp.
471-472).
Organ
(1977) too
unrealistic.
The fifth negative study by Motowidlo,
Dunnette
(1978),
Loehr and
et al
(other
that Motowidlo,
et al's
9 .,..
1977,
et al
among others).
... . .
,1980
ii
11
This
Furthermore,
et al
(1980)
noted above,
Under
to varying
(1972)
I
I
I
'
12
Ashworth and
an experimental study of
to earn
a high amount
to
Locke, et al (1970),
found
self-
in two
__
f o r
those in high
._
I......
.. . ........
-rha
mmain -i
13
support sthools; and Ivancevich and McMahon,in three studies,
(7.977a,
1977b,
1977c)
f a r
higher order (growth) need strength, who were white and who
had higher levels of education.
Negative results were obtained by Forward and Zander
'1971) with United Fund campaign workers; by Hall and
Foster (1977) with participants in a simulated management
game; and by Steers (1975)
with first
imply
level supervisors.
of course,
For example,
open to
Dossett,
Also,
referred to earlier,
et al (
1980
Their measures of
'"" ,
"
...,, - .,.,.,,,.,,.....,,,.
I,
14
Goal SpecificLty
Specific hard goals vs.
(difficult)
1968).
these
hard goals.
Ivancevich
performance
Ivancevich (1977)
Ivancevich (1974)
in two
with
with logging;
'
15
Ji
casters,
Air Frieght",
service work,:s
with die
("At Emery
While
i
s
tsetting
1977).
this failure.
(Ivancevich,
1974,
with prose
(1974)
16
learning; Latham and Saari (1979b) with brainstorming;
Latham and Saari
et al (1978)
(1975)
and Rothkopf
(1977)
on a
rather than hard since they were set at the median scores
for pretest subjects and were surpassed by subjects in all
conditions.
(3.978),
for example,
goals.
Locke,
Mento and
.1
X
..
'
,,--'-
17
Ronan,
Relatively
1972)
found that
found that
less
These
self-report designs.
18I
The borderline and negative results of Hall and Hall
(1976)
intentions to
perform well.
The findings of the above studies involving vague
intentions can be contrasted with the organizational studies
by Miller, Katerberg and Hulin (1979); Mobley,
Horner
longitudinal correlations
4
I
Conclusions
Overall,
the hypothesis
Fifty one
and
nine
studies failed to
two
studies
out of 110
did
19
Direction.
and action.
mechanism is
Similarly, Locke,
et al (1970)
Reynolds,
Terborg
(1976)
found
(Terborg
Rothkopf
1<
20
instructions),
Effort.
Thus,
as Kahneman (1973)
and Shapira
Sales (1970)
(1975)
and Bassett
In
(Locke,
1968;
1966).
this hypothesis of
positive linear
i,
1;'i...."
is
performance
21
ability is
this is
1978; Kahneman,
1973),
Of course,
highly anxious,
task.
subjects become
because it
repre-
Persistence.
Persistence is
is
a combination of the
I__
Nvf
__
-4
22
4.
Strategy Development.
indirect.
It
is
cognitive
problem solving.
for example,
They
(1976)
study,
___
__
*:~ij
23
out,
performance.
found that
For example,
white but not very hard or hard but not very edible than
subjects given easier goals.
training,
(1977)
IL,,%:
(1970)
24
made more errors, presumably by lowering their standards,
than those given a low work. load.
Christensen-Szalanski
ConclusionsI
There are four known mechanisms by which goals affect
.1
task performance.
And they
1968).
25
performance,
In each of the
Individuals
Thus,
the
although
studles
hypothesis.
Cell 1
KR with no specific
Figure 1.
Table 1 summarizes
~~~~~~~~~~..
_.
....
... ......
,..-.
....
26
The
mediating hypothesis,
not sufficient
(1>3).
based
on
1977).
However,
their daily
(Note 2)
et al (1978)
27
--
feedback
performed significantly
whenKR was removed and self reports were not kept, employee
performance returned to baseline levels "or was almost as
bad" (p. 45), even though the performance target remained in
effect (1>2, 2-:4).
~**
---
28
In another so-called "behavior modification" program
(whichwas actually a goals and KR study~see Locke, 1980),
Komaki, Barwick and Scott (1978) examined safe behavior
in the making and wrapping of pastry products.
The authors
Famnilies included
The
nobeter han
cotro
plusKR.
goupsperormd
Allothr
a
Lawrence
and
Fowler
(1978)
conducted
Strang,
29
group's performance was significantly better than that.
of the goals-only group (4>2),
performance improvement
(1>2).
relationship.
to
subjects worked
Half of the
were placed in
the
The
.60 and
30
in the No KR group,
.01.
In this study,
31
Hard Goals/Do Best or No Goals as the variables,
Even the studies reported did not always involve total
control over the variables, e.g., spnaeosga
2setting
among KR onysbet
lasprevented.
Such acopeecotoldsuyinobencodtd
by two of theprsnauhr.Iispeitdhtcl
1 (see Figure 1) will show better performance than the
remaining cells, which should not differ among themselves.
These
The findings
LI
32
et al,
(e.g.,
is processed
see Locke,
1968).
timing,
specificity,
frequency,
type,
source
Unfortunately,
the studies
enough
to allow any
provides a
1973), Komaki, et al
studies emphasize
field settings,
..
"::'
aq
Hw""
'I'.
-=-',
";',-,.
, ,,.,-.''(,.*
" '"
"r' '
.',
,;,,.-;
'"t'~h"" """".
.:.,-r,
...
,:'='
''
.:'
}.-":
33
Monetary Rewards
It
is
performance.
press),
Locke,
for example,
Feren, McCaleb,
(1968)
Futhermore,
was no difference in
vs.
there
a small incentive,
controlled,
found that
Similarly, Terborg
(1976)
34
(1978)
Latham,
scientists.
.a
Vickery(i976)
setting treatment).
A second possibility is
f this hypothesis,
1968)
is
that
i,,
In other
,4
35
words,
et al (1978),
(1973),
Terborg (1976)
1978;
Pritchard
Similarly Rosswork
(1977)
Conclusions
Money can affect task performance independently of goal
level.
to be goal commitment, with the degree of increased commitment depending on the amount of the incentive offered.
36
While direct questions regarding commitment used in a couple
of studies do not support this interpretation,
the fault
4(
-)
there
However,
subordinate participation.
The
(1976).
a field experiment
Id,...%
:''`
...:t
..',.!
.
."'
..:
I
37
assigned goal setting for sales personnel.
While
no
Four
This is
important because
states that the higher the goal the higher the performance.
The following studies all included measurements of goal
difficulty.
the South.
may have been due in part to the fact that higher goals were
set in
38
In a second field experiment, Latham and Yukl (1976)
found no significant differences in the performance of typists
with participative and assigned goals.
However, the
39
Goal difficulty levels were held constant across the
participative and assigned goal conditions.
As predicted, no
Moreover,
no difference on a
replicated the
In
the first
experiment,
Dossett,
however.)
setting is
the
7]Jn
4'1
40
the support-
However,
that supportiveness led to higher goals being set than a nonsupportive supervisory style.
It
First, participation
can lead to the setting of higher goals than would be the case
without participation,
although,
in some cases,
The first
lead to
effect
V.....
'A
S-
41
The second effect is
acceptance below.
It
(1 9 7 6 )
as discussed in Latham
Ha 1 1
, and Ivancevich
"reinforcement")
(1974
a n d
,
who called it
participation in
Other factors,
it
cognitive effects.
Locke,
et al
1973).
performance efficiency
(Bragg
of
study.
Individual Differences
However,
several
,
.i
r =
'"
KJ
.
7'
42
Demographic Variables
Of the few studies
technicians,
In
and, of course,
1976).
-WINI
III4
-$
i' :'
43
They found
1975b) to
Perceived participation
44
in goal setting was related to several measures of performance
for black technicians but not for whites.
SHowever,
goal
and
A
I
found that blacks have a higher need for security in performing theirjobs.... One way to derive more security in a
goal setting program is to have goal clarity, receive
feedback, and participate in the process" (p. 298).
Clearly more studies are needed before this interpretation
can be verified.
If
it
Three of
Two studies by
This
'
45
various levels of performance and of performance-outcome
contingencies.
However,
it
is
would take
technicians,
setting
(1977c) on
or
performance.
goal
to
knowledge no other
1977; Rosswork,
1977).
However,
1976; Steers,
1975b) and
1975).
Personality Variables
Need for Achievement.
female supervisbrs,,
Steers (1975),
in his study of
individuals.
............................
'I
47
For example,
Searfoss and
Similarly,
found that
Dossett,
1971).
To our knowledge,
'77
48
In the study by Ivancevich and McMahon
technicians,
(1977a) involving
goal clarity
for
this finding.
Self-Esteem.
& Yukl,
1976),
(Latham
desirable outcomesfe.g.,
promotion]
1970,
p.
312).
(Yukl
greater
M.
49
those with low goal instrumentality; when self-esteem was
high, there was no instrumentality effect.
The integrating principle here may be that people with
high self-esteem will wcrk hard without practical rewards
(for pride?) whereas people with low self-esteem will not.
Carroll and Tosi (1970) found in a correlational study
that individuals with high self-assurance
ncreased effort
is
following positive feedback; the performance of low selfesteem individuals decreased more than high self-esteem
individuals following negative feedback.
50
manner which is congruent with their self-concept.
Thus,
people respond more to feedback that agrees with their sejlfconcept, be it positive or negative, than they do to feedback
that is inconsistent with their self-concept.
Internal Versus Externial Control.
There are
The
would predict,
(a)
for example,
1971)
test them.
The results for self-esteem are also intrigtuing.
variable seems worthy of further study since it
expect
is
This
logical to
The personalicy
Steers
521
(1976) modified a questionniire developed by Hermans (1970).
Therefore, it cannot be determined whether the different
results obtained in these two studies were due to differences
in the measures or in the population.
not reported.
place.
in some studies.
Researchers
53
Goal Acceptance,
However,
since it
is
assumed that
it
is
task
Generally attempts to
None of the
1979b),
(1979),
Latham, et al (1978),
of goal acceptance.
Dossett, et al's
(1979)
Study 2 found
However,
Oldham (1975)
(1980,
found
Organ (1977)
(which consisted
54
typically of direct,
(i.e.,
as did Mento, et al (
1980
).
These findings
Small
____________________
_______________
(c)
Due to limitations in
Wilson,
the design
Within-
it
he'
committed to.
or she is
is
the subject.
a subject who is
---- -
-,-l,-----
-i
__
ii
56
Each alternative choice would have different implications
goal.
for performance.
Goal acceptance or commitment can be considered a form
of choice,
i.e.,
(e.g.,
1941; Hilgard,
see Frank,
1958).
The categories
easily into
They fit
1964):
Expectations of success.
(Mento,
et al,
).
et al,
1980
).
Note 1; Cummings,
1974).
57
(Lewin, 1958), although failure may lead to higher goals in
pressure situations (Zander, Forward & Albert, 1969;
Forward & Zander, 1971) or even due to self-induced pressure
Generalized self-confidence may also affect
(Hilgard, 1958).
and promotion.
Theoretically goal
58
While external factors such as rewards and pressures
presumably affect the individual through their effects on
expectancies, instrumentalities and values, it is worth
emphasizing pressures because they have played a major role
in most of the goal setting studies.
Similarly,
The mere
unrealistically
high.
59.
Conclusions
:11.
Furthermore,I
task performance:
following conditions:
'a) Range of Goals.
People with
60
of people with easy and hard goals but may not perform better
than individuals with "do best" goals.
easy goal subjects is
1976).
It
compare Locke,
is
to affect
Goal Specificity.
specific quantitative
Ability.
improvement is
Putting out
(even though more
i:...-
61
in order to isolate the variance in performance due to goals
from that due to ability.
If
ability is
not controlledit
Some knowledge of
and feedback is
provided
not known.
some cases
(see Locke,
et al, 1968,
Monetary Rewards.
1A.
62
"small"
(e.g.,
in
a typical laboratory
experiment).
(f)
There is
no consistent
controlled.
(Hannan,
1975).
a more
(1979a) defined it
as:
friendliness,
Latham
listening to
encouraging questions,
and
Individual Differences.
factors
l.terature.
Subjects high
63
be more likely to accept and try for challenging goals than
those with low self-esteem.
t :
Direct measures of
For example,
indirect measures
(such as4
the difference between the personal and the assigned goal) show
more promise.
64
instrumentalities.
agree with those who claim that goal setting might only wc~rk
on certain types of tasks.
the case that the four mechanisms noted earlier are differentially
important in different tasks.
dI
65
A very intriguing finding by Masters,
[sic])
This finding is
et al (1978)
led to spontaneous
(1975)
and
White,
et al
!oal manipulation.
However,
It
is
could lead people to set higher goals than they would otherwise
(other people's performance becoming the goal) and/or lead to
greater goal commitment
(Locke,
1968).
whether hard
It
',c-= ,
leads
66
subjects to "worry" rather than concentrate on the task
(Wine,
1971).
1971).
A review of
Feren, McCaleb,
median improvement in
In one
Locke,
1975).
et al (in
field settings
(Note 6)
White and
Locke
recognized explicitly
.I
67
Of course,
goal setting is
a very simple,
if
not obvious,
it
II
68
Footnotes
1.
Washington
2.
(subcontractor).
for example,
We treat
the treatment
it
.I
69
Reference Notes
1.
Ashworth, D. N.,
Relationships among
& Mobley, W. H.
Columbia:
Organizational Research,
July,
2.
1978.
Dockstader,
S.
L.
goal setting:
Likert, R.
Saari,
1977.
L. M.,
& Latham,
1977.
G. P.
Hypotheses on Re-
Unpublished manuscript
of Washington,
5.
Shapira,
Z.
6.
White,
University
1980.
Hebrew University,
F. M& Locke,
E.
A.
Unpublished
1977.
Perceived determinants
manuscript,
University of Maryland,
---
Unpublished
1980.
70
7.
An
Washington, D.C.:
Per-
71
References
Adam,
E.
E.
Behavior modification in
F.
M.,
& Farris,
G.
F.
quality control.
1975,
18,
Annett,
Md.:
J.
662-679.
A five-year
1972,
8,
185-200.
Penguin Books,
Baltimore,
1969.
Positive reinforcement boosts
Organizational Dynamics,
1973,
1(3),
41-50.
Bandura,
N.
A.
J.:
Bandura,
Prentice-Hall,
A.
tions in
& Simon,
1977.
K. M.
G.
Englewood Cliffs,
A.
1977,
1, 177-193.
Organizational
24,
Bavelas,
J.
B.
1979,
J.
1978,
B.,
performance:
202-227.
23,
Behavioral
177-186.
& Lee,
E.
S.
1978,32(4),219-240.
72
Becker, L. J.
joint
setting on performance:
Research note.
Participative
An experimental study in a
1973, Z, 727-735.
Brass, D. J., & Oldham, G. R.
Validating an in-
Characteristics of
Psychology, 1969,
22, 291-305.
Campbell, D. J.c & Ilgen, D. R.
Additive effects
& Tosi, H. L.
Goal character-
Administrative Science
73
J. J.
Christensen-Szalanski,
A further examination
J.
1980,
Relative effectiveness
W. D.
Organizational Be-
1976,
L.
Cummings,
114-142.
Per-
& Rosen, M.
D. P.,
Schwab,
16,
1971,
526-530.
Dachler,
H. P.,
& Mobley,
Construct validation
W. H.
of an instrumentality-expectancy-task-goal
of work motivation:
ditions.
1973,
model
58,
397-418.
Dossett, D. L.,
Latham,
G. P.,
& Mitchell,
T.
R.
The
held costant.
1979,
291-298.
M.
Feedback:
setting-performance relationship.
Psychology,
}L
1977,
62,
624-627.
Journal of Applied
74
Fishbein, M.,
& Ajzen,
Reading, Mass:
J.,
Belief attitude,
intention,
and behavior:
Forward,
I.
Addison-Wesley,
A.
& Zander,
1975.
Organizational
goals and effects on performance.
Behavior and Human Performance, 1971, 6, 184-199.
Frank, J.
D.
R.
P.., Kay,
E.
218-226.
38,
& Meyer,
H. H.
Participation
1966,
19,
3-20.
& Rosenman,
Friedman, M.,
your heart.
New York:
Frost, P. J.,
& Mahoney,
task process:
Organizational Behavior
17,
1976,
& Heilbrun, A.
list
manual.
Press, 1965.
A.
T.
an interactive influence on
I.
1974.
Knopf,
individual performance.
Gough,
H.
R.
B.
328-350.
Consulting Psychologists
Greller, M. M.
J.
R.,
& Lawler,
Journal
6_5, 24-27.
1980,
E. E.
Employee reactions
tc job characteristics.
"
--
4__-
'
-r..:
;:.:
.
-
f..
I&
..7
14
'
~75
ii
Hall, D. T.,
& Poster, L.
W.
A psychological success
Goals,
performance,
and
1977,
282-290.
Hall, D. T.,
goals,
& Hall, F.
performance,
S.
The relationship
success,
self-image,
between
and in-
D. T.,
& Lawler,
E.
E.
research performance.
1976,
III.
9, 267-278.
American Scientist,
1971,
59 (1), 64-73.
Hamner,
W. C.,
& Harnett,
D. L.
Goal-setting,
per-
217-230.
L. The effecte of pazticipatio
exerie.
wy
I-
1975.
H. J.
Psychology,
E.
ckttn ca goal
dissertation, University of
M.
A questionnaire measure of
achievement motivation.
Hilgard,
in goa
R.
aspiration.
1970,
54,
Journal of Applied
353-363.
L.
StCey and M. F.
DeMartino
Howard Allen,
1958.
76
Hinrichs, J.
R.
New York:
Ilgen, D. R.,
Fisher, C. D.,
1978.
& Taylor, M. S.
Con-
organizations.
64,
1979,
349-371.
Ivancevich,
J.
M.
J.
M.
Administrative Science
19, 563-574.
Effects of goal setting on per-
J.
1976,
M.
61,
Journal of Applied
605-612.
J.
M. & McMahon,
J.
1977,
T.
20,
406-419.
A study of task-
552-563.
Ivancevich,
J.
& McMahon,
J.
T.
Black-white
Or-
287-300.
Ivancevich,
J.
1977,
(b)
M.,
& McMahon,
J.
T.
Education as a
1977,
1i, 83-94.
Journal
(c)
.....................
~~**1
.........
77
Kahneman,
D.
N. J.:
Kaplan,
Prentice-Hall,
R.,
& Rothkopf,
Englewood Cliffs,
1973.
E.
Z.
Instructional objectives
as directions to learners:
S.,
& Hamner,
W. C.
1974,
66,
Journal
448-456.
Effect of performance
1976,
& Boyatzis,
61,
R. E.
23,
439-457.
Komaki,
J.,
Barwick, K. D.,
48-57.
Goal-setting and
Journal of
Human Relations,
& Scott, L. R.
A be-
K.
1978,
64,
Journal of Applied
434-445.
R.
E.,
& Nath, R.
1976,
68,
1970,
54,
31-41.
Role of performance
Journal of Educational
260-264.
J.
J.
The "practical
1975,60, 12-124
7?8
Latham, G. P.,
& Kinne,
S.
& Locke,
1974,
E. A.
59,
187-191.
Increasing productivity
A field replication of
Parkinson's law.
60,
Journal
1975,
524-526.
Latham, G. P.,
& Locke,
E. A.
Goal-setting:
8 (2),
Organizational Dynamics,
& Saari,
L. M.
Latham,
1979,
G. P.,
64,
151-156.
& Saari,
L. M.
Journal of Applied
(a)
1979,
(D)
Latham,
22,
163-168.
G. P.,
& Yukl, G. A.
& Yukl,
G. A.
1975,
18,
824-845.
299-302.
Latham, G. P.,
1975,
(b)
& Yukl,
G. A.
166-171.
(a)
A review of research
Latham,
Importance of supportive
A motiva-
68-80.
Latham, G. P.,
60,
1976,
79
Latham,
G.
P.,
portance
Mitchell,
T.
of participative
R.,
& Dossett,
goal setting
D.
L.
Im-
and antici-
of Alm
K.
d Psychology,
1976,
human motivation.
Lieberman
D. A.
(Eds.),
Cleveland:
chologist,
1979,
34,
319-Z03.
effects of knowledge of
E.
A.
1957,
l,
Journal of
324-329.
incentiver.
Performance,
1968,
Locke,
E. A.
3, 157-189.
contradiction.
25,
991-1009.
Locke,
E.
A.
E. A.
1972,
Locke,
E. A.
zations.
2,
N7
Psy-
31, 175-197.
1975,
26,
457-480.
543-553.
L.
A (limited)
American Psy-
Applied Psychology,
C.
Understanding
A. Motivational
results:
In
Locke,
163-171.
Locke, E.
63,
1977,
*I.
80
Locke,
E. A.
1978,
3, 594-601.
Locke,
E. A.
paradigms.
65,
Locke,
A tale of two
1980,
16-23.
E. A. & Bryan, J.
F.
Cognitive aspects of
psychomotor performance:
Locke, E. A.,
1966,
& Bryan, J. F.
50,
Journal
286-291.
Goal-setting as a
E.
1968,
A.,
398-406.
& Bryan,
J.
F.
Knowledge of score
E.
A.,
& Bryan,
tion of goals in
J.
F.
1969,
E. A.,
task performance.
& Schweiger,
decision-making:
59-65.
Organizational
1969,
D. M.
4,
35-42.
I,
(b)
Participation in
In B.M.
Staw (Ed).
(a)
53,
CT:
1979.
-:
"
...
....
817
Locke,
E.
A.,
J.
Bryan,
F.,
L. M.
& Kendall,
Goals
1968,
E. A.,
52,
Journal of Applied
104-121.
Cartledge, N.,
& Knerr,
C.
S.
Studies
goal
Organizational Behavior
setting, and performance.
and Human Performance, 1970, _5,135-158.
Locke,
E. A.,
Cartledge,
N.,
& Koeppel,
J.
Motivational
A goal-setting phe-
E. A.,
Mento,
A. J.,
& Katcher,
B. L.
474-485.
The
Personnel Psychology,
Locke,
E.
A.,
Feren,
and Denny, A. T.
1978,
D. B.,
31,
269-280.
McCaleb, V. M.,
Shaw, K. N.,
Wiley,
& Cldham, G. R.
Changes
conference, London:
London, M.,
In K.
in press.
Effects of varying goal
1976,
537-54G.
.......................................................
...
'...-
r.
Lopes,
L.
L.
268-277.
Masters,
Ki
I!'
1976,
J.
C.,
of achievement standards,
R.
C.
Effects
tangible rewards,
and
Child Development,
McClelland, D. C.,
achievement.
Meichenbaum,
New York:
& Winter, D. G.
New York:
D.
48, 217-224.
Motivating economic
Free Press,
1971.
Cognitive-behavior modification.
Plenum,
Mento, A. J.,
1977,
1977.
Cartledge,
N. D.,
& Locke,
E.
A.
Another look
R. H.
MBO:
Washington, D. C.
1977.
Miller,
G. A.,
Galanter,
E.
& Pribram, K. H.
& Hulin, C.
S..
'
' '
64,
New York:
Plans
Holt,
L.
1960.
Evalua-
509-517.
" '
'
...
83
Mobley, W. H.,
Horner,
S.
0.,
& Hollingsworth, A.
T.
408-414.
Mobley, W. H.,
B. M.
Hand,
H. H.,
Baker,
R.
L.,
& Meglino,
1979,
Mossholder,
64,
K. W.
10-18.
1978,
A laboratory ex-
1980,
202-210.
Motowidlo,
S.
J.
Unpublished Ph.D.
Minnesota,
Motowidlo,
dissertation, University of
1976.
S.,
Loehr,
V.
& Dunnette, M. D.
A laboratory
study of the effects of goal specificity on the relationship between probability of success and performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology,
Nemeroff,
W. F.,
1978,
& Cosentino, J.
63,
172-179.
Utilizing feedback
1979,
22,
Academy of Manage-
566-576.
J
*,::
S84
Ness,
R.
G.,
& Patton, R. W.
The effect
and Research,
Nisbett, R.
E.,
can know:
!ii
jI
MBO:
1978,
G. R.
1977,
84,
Psy-
231-259.
A backward glance.
Business Horizons,
1975,
18, 461-475.
Oldham,
G. R.
visors:
Hi
14-24.
on goal acceptance.
71
Odiorne,G. S.
Oldham,
Cognitive Therapy
3,205-211.
& Wilson, T. D.
chological Review,
October,
of beliefs on
1976,
15, 66-86.
Organ,
D.
W.
setting.
1977, 18,
Organizational
378-389.
Pritchard, R.
D.,
& Curts, M. I.
1973,
10, 175-183.
Rand, A.
Introduction to, Objectivist epistemology.
New York : The Objectivist,Inc.,1967.
Reynolds,
R.
E.,
Standiford,
S.
N.,
& Anderson,
R.
C.
183-190,
1979,
71,
85
Ronan,
W. W.,
Latham,
G. P.,
& Kinne,
S.
B.,
III.
an industrial situation.
Applied Psychology,
Rosswork,
S.
G.
1973,
58,
Journal of
302-307.
Goal setting:
The effects on an
E.
Z.,
& Billington, M. J.
1977,
69,
710-715.
A two-factor
E.
1975,
Z.,
67,
692-704.
& Billington, M. J.
Goal-guided
Inferring a descriptive
71,
Rothkopf,
E.
& Kaplan,
R.
Exploration of the
T.
A.
S.
63,
Intentional behavior:
human motivation.
Sales,
1972,
M.
underload.
Performance,
New York:
Journal of
295-302.
An approach to
Ronald Press,
1970.
___..,
5, 592-608.
__
, '_._-,_,._.
J.
Schrauger,
S.,
& Rosenberg,
S.
F.
Self-esteem
1970,
Journal of Personality,
404-417.
Of Mannagemaent Jo=Uras,
Singh, J.
and motivation to
bidget prooces
in the
P.
related variables.
Task-goal attributes,
Steers1 R. M.
ment,
1972.
n achieveOrganiza-
1975,
392-403.
Steers,
& Porter, L. W.
R. M.,
Lawrence,
1974,
E.
Psy-
81, 434-452.
& FoWler,
C.,
P.
C.
63,
446-450.
F. W.
New York:
I .-I
., - -,
, ,- m- - , ..-
..
.. . ....
..
. . ... . .
..
....
.I;
87
V
Terborg,
J.
R.
setting.
1976,
61,
613-621.
R.,
J.
Terborg,
and performance:
1978,
D. D.,
behavior,
Motivation,
& Miller, H. E.
63,
Journal of Applied
29-39.
Bell, C. H.,
Jr.,
& Mitchell,
T.
R.
1976,
61,
379-394.
Vroom, V.
Wexley,
K. N. & Nemeroff,
New York:
W. F.
Wiley,
1964.
Effectiveness of
S.
E.,
1975,
60,
Journal of Applied
446-450.
Mitchell,
T.
R.,
& Bell, C.
H.,
Jr.
and social
a simulated organization.
of Applied PsycholoU,
Wilsted, W. D. & Hand,
aspiration levels in
ment of the firm.
1974,
17,
1977,
H. H.
62,
Journal
665-673.
Determinants of
172-177.
rN
...
88
Wine,
J.
J.
F.,
9 Kulick,
judgments.
R. M.
76,
92-104.
Performance,
1977,
20,
54-65.
Interrelationships
individual dif-
1978,
31,
305-323.
New
Adaptation
S.
Organizational Behavior
1969,
4,
56-76.
variables.
76,
295-310.
!II
!|I
'
"_::,__'' ,
--.-
,:-::''
=- :
''
''''
"
"-
89
Figure 1
Model for Analyzing Goal-KR Studies
KR
NO KR
SPECIFIC
HARD
GOAL
NO SPECIFIC
GOAL
OR
DO-BEST GOAL
1I1
/-
,
90
Table 1
STUDY
COMPARISONS PERFORMED
1 vs.
1 vs.
2 vs.4
3 vs.4
1 > 3
3 = 4
Dockstader
(Note 2)
1 > 3
3 = 4
1 > 3
3 - 4
1 > 3
3 -4
Komaki,
(1973)
1 > 2
2= 4
Barwick&
1 > 2
1 > 2
2 = 4
1 > 2
2= 4
2 < 4b
Scott (1978)
Becker ( 1 9
78
)a
Strang, Lawrence
&Fowler (1978) a
These studies included both hard and easy goal plus KR conditions.
performance of easy goal subjects was no better than that in the
control condition.
II
The