How does a manager make his
employees “score a goal”?
A research on the enhancement of satisfaction with goal
setting.
Mast er t hesi s, MscBA, speci al i zat i on Hu man Resour ce Mana ge men t Uni ver si t y of Gr o ni n gen, Facul t y of Econo m i cs and Busi ness
No ve mber , 20 11 Pa m t en Doesschat e St udent nu mber : 15756 86 Hoe kst r aat 2a 9712 A N Gr oni n gen T el : +31 ( 0) 6 -2342 879 8
E -Mai l : p.c.t en .doessc hat e@st udent .r u g.nl
Super vi sor / Uni ver i st y J . van P ol en
AB STR AC T
P urpose – D ur i n g t hi s r esear ch, a cl oser l oo k was t a ken on t he el ement s of goal
set t i ng whi ch a mana ger can i nf l uence i n or d er t o cr eat e a hi gher l e vel of
sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng. T hi s i s neede d t o est abl i sh t he enhan ci ng ef f ect s of goal set t i n g.
Desi gn/ m et hodol og y – 60 e mpl o yees of an i nvest ment ban k wer e i nt er vi ewe d
accor di ng t o t he qu est i onnai r e of Lee et al . and quest i ons f ocussi n g on t he moder at or s of t he Hi gh Per f or mance C ycl e. Resul t s wer e anal yze d wi t h a hi er ar chi cal l i neai r r egr essi on.
F i ndi ngs – Resul t s p o i nt ed out t hat ma na ger s shoul d def i ni t el y f oc us on t he goal
set t i ng el e ment s and moder at or s of t he Hi gh Per f or mance c ycl e t o enhance
sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng. Mana ger s sho ul d especi al l y keep i n mi nd abi l i t y of e mpl o yees when set t i n g goal s. F ur t her mor e, t hey s houl d pr o vi de cl ar i t y about t he goal s, shoul d f oc us on goal ef f i cacy and on t he or gani zat i on f aci l i t at i on when t he y want t o i ncr ease sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i n g.
Research l i m i t at i ons/ i m pl i cat i ons – Mana ger s ar e mor e a war e of t he el e ment s
t hey ha ve t o f oc us on i n or der t o enhance sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng. T he r esul t s ar e of par t i cul ar r el evance f or t he or gani zat i on of t hi s r esea r ch. Ho we ver , mor e r esear ch i s nee de d t o i ncr ease gener al i zabi l i t y.
INT RO D UC TIO N
‘Man is a goal seeking animal. His life only has meaning if he is reaching out and striving for his goals.’ Aristotle
Hear i n g t he wor d “ goa l ” ma kes most of us t h i nk a bout soccer . T hi s because of t he f act t hat , i n t he Net her l ands, soccer i s t he m ost popul ar spor t t o bo t h wat ch and pl ay ( Bur eau Duodeci m, 20 10) . Howe ver , t h er e ar e mor e vi e ws ap pl i cabl e t o t hi s wor d. As def i ned b y t he di ct i onar y, a goal i s “an obser vabl e a nd measur abl e end r esul t havi n g one or mor e obj ect i ves t o be ac hi eved wi t hi n a mor e or l ess f i xed t i mef r a me” ( V an Dal e ) . T he t i mef r a me wi t h soccer i s t he 90 mi nut es on t he f i el d. In b usi ness, t hi s t i mef r a me depen ds on t he goal i t sel f .
Goal s ar e a cor e aspec t of man y H R r el at ed t ool s. It f or ms t he st ar t i ng poi nt f or ef f ect i ve per f or ma nce appr ai sal , t r ai ni ng, co achi ng and sel f mana ge ment ( Shant z and Lat ha m, 20 11) . F u r t her mor e, i t i s sai d t h at set t i ng goal s can al so i mpr o ve pr oduct i vi t y wi t hi n t h e wor kpl ace, i t can r e duce cost s i n vol ved wi t h pr ocesses i n t he or ga ni zat i on ( T er pst r a and Ro zel l , 1994) , can be used f or sel ec t i on ( Lat ha m, Saar i , Pur sel l , and Ca mpi on, 1980) an d can ser ve as a sel f -r e gul at or y t o ol at wor k ( Fr ayne and Lat ha m, 1 987) .
K nowl ed ge about goal s was not as pr esent i n t he ear l y da ys as i t i s now. Br yan a nd Har t er ( 1897) wer e t he f i r st t o di scover t hat per f or mance of t el e gr a ph oper at or s i mpr o ved when t he y h ad a speci f i c goal t o w or k t o . T hi s st ud y was one of a ki nd and i t wasn’ t unt i l t he l at t er hal f of t he 20t h cent ur y t hat f ur t her r esear ch was conduct ed. In 1970, i t was R ya n w ho not i ced t hat consci ousness p u r poses, pl ans, i nt ent i ons, and t as ks ( goal s) wer e t he i mme d i at e mot i vat i onal caus es of most hu man act i on . It pr o vi ded new di r ect i ons i n mot i vat i onal r esear ch because bef or e t hese f i ndi ngs , beha vi or i st l ong s u ggest ed t h at subconsci ous pr oces ses wer e t he under l yi n g r eason f or enhanced or d ecr eased mot i vat i on ( Gar dner , 2011) . Bui l di n g on t he t heor y of R yan , Loc ke an d Lat ha m ( 1 990) de vel oped t hei r goal set t i ng t heor y. T hi s t heor y st a t es t hat t her e i s a posi t i ve l i near r el at i onshi p bet ween a speci f i c hi gh goal and t ask per f or mance. Di f f er ent r esear cher s el abor at ed on t hi s t heor y b y i dent i f yi n g sever al medi at or s t hat expl ai n wh y goal set t i ng i ncr eases per f or mance ( Loc ke & Br yan, 1969; T er bor g, 1976) . Fur t her mor e, Loc ke &
t o use goal s i n or gani zat i onal set t i ngs i s t he di r ect i ve f unct i on, a m or e di r ect at t ent i on t o t he r el eva nt goal s ( Rot h ko pf & Bi l l i ngt on, 1979) . An o t her
adva nt a geous ef f ect of goal s i s t he ener gi zi n g f u nct i on; hi gh goal s l ead t o gr eat er ef f or t ( Bandur a & Cer vo ne, 19 83; Br yan & Loc ke, 1 967a; Sal es, 1 970) . Mor eo ver , har d goal s af f ect per si st ence posi t i vel y ( LaP or t e & Nat h, 19 76) . W ood and Loc ke ( 1990) f ound a not her r eason t o use goal s i n o r gani zat i ons, na mel y t hat t hey i ndi r ect l y l ead t o t he a r ousal , di sco ver y an d use of t as k-r el e vant knowl ed ge a nd st r at egi es. It i s becaus e of t hese benef i ci al a spect s t hat nowada ys mor e t han 62% of t he UK co mpani es use so me f or m of goal set t i ng ( Bar on & Ar mst r ong, 2004) . As st at ed abo ve , i t w o ul d be assu med t hat goal set t i ng o nl y has b e nef i t s i n
or gani zat i onal set t i n gs . Ho we ver , t hi s see ms not t o be t he case . O d onez,
Schwei zer , Gal i ns ky a nd Ba zer man ( 200 9) ar gue t hat goal set t i n g h as pr edi ct abl e and pow er f ul ne gat i ve si de ef f ect s. For exa mpl e, t he goal set t i n g pr ocedur e at Sear s cr eat ed an en vi r on ment wher e mi st a ke s occur r ed and e vent u al l y l ed e mpl o yees t o decei ve cust o mer s. Because of t hei r ver y chal l en gi n g goal s, st af f bega n t o o ver char ge c ust o mer s f or wor k and st ar t ed t o co mpl et e u nnecessar y
r epai r s ( Di shneau, 1 99 2) . T hei r goal s wer e r eached, but wi t h si de - ef f ect s t hat wer e not benef i ci al f or t he or gani zat i on a nd i t s e mpl o yees. Al so, Ac km an ( 2002) f oun d t hat t he ban kr upt c y of Enr on w as due t o t he mi s use of goal set t i ng. One of t he bi ggest pr obl e ms wi t h goal set t i n g i s t he nar r ow f ocus i t cr eat es f or e mpl o yees . As sai d b y Ba zer man a nd Chu gh ( 2 006) , t he i nat t ent i onal bl i ndness of goal set t i n g has di r ect i nf l uences on p er f or ma nce and l ead p eopl e t o o ver l oo k t he benef i ci al
co mpone nt s see m t o h ave a l ot of i nf l uence on t he ef f ect of goal s et t i ng. Ho we ver , i t i s not yet co mpl et el y cl ear how and i n whi ch wa y t hese per cept i o ns i nf l uence t he goal set t i ng pr oces s. Indeed, a nu mber of quest i ons r e gar di n g t hi s i nf l uence of per cept i ons on t he goa l set t i ng pr ocess el e ment s r e mai n una ddr ess ed i n l i t er at ur e. T hi s l ack of kn owl ed ge i s al so pr esent i n t he or ga ni zat i on of t hi s r esear ch wher e per cept i ons of t he goa l set t i ng pr ocess ar e most l y ne gat i ve . T hese negat i ve per cept i ons ha ve a bi g consequence, most l y because of t he f act t ha t t he
or gani zat i on of t hi s r e sear ch i s a hi gh per f or mance or ga ni zat i on . Wi t hi n a hi gh per f or mance or gani zat i on, goal set t i n g i s o n e of t he most i mpor t an t aspect s because i t wi l l l ead t o hi gher c o mmi t ment ( F ar ndal e, Hope -H ai l e y and K el l i her , 2011) . Mor eo ver , t hi s co mmi t ment wi l l t hen l ead t o a cer t ai n a mou nt of
or gani zat i onal suc cess f act or s such as hi gh er j ob sat i sf act i on and or gani zat i on ci t i zenshi p beha vi or ( Mat hi eu and Zaj ac, 19 90; Or gan, 1990) . T hi s, t o get her wi t h ot her success f act or s, wi l l i mpr o ve per f or ma nce ( Guest , 1987; Whi t ener , 2001; Wood and de Mene zes , 1998) . Fur t her mor e, hi gh per f or mance or ga ni zat i ons use t he bal anced scor ecar d appr oach, i n whi ch go al set t i ng i s t he c or e c o mpone nt ( K apl an and Nor t on, 1 996) . Beca use of t hi s cent r al r ol e of goal set t i ng an d i t ’ s per f or mance enha nci n g ef f ect , t he need f or s at i sf act i on wi t h goal s et t i ng i s hi gh . T hi s sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i n g wi l l r esul t i n goal set t i n g t o bec o me as
ef f ect i ve as possi bl e . Consequent l y, r esear c h shoul d t a ke a cl oser l ook at t hese di f f er ent co mponent s of goal set t i ng pr ocess and t a ke a cl oser l oo k at t he
TH EO RY
It i s of t en t he case t ha t peopl e ar e l i kel y t o i ncr ease t hei r ef f or t i n or der t o at t ai n t hei r goal i f t he y see t hat t hei r per f or mance i s bel ow t he goal t hat has been set ( Lat ha m and Loc ke , 2 006) . T hi s goal -di r ect ed act i on i s an e vol ut i onar y aspect and ensur es t hat peopl e ca n at t ai n t he val ues t ha t ma ke sur vi val possi b l e ( Lat ha m an d Loc ke, 2 006) . Ha vi n g t hi s kn owl ed ge i n t he back of t hei r mi n ds, L ocke and Lat ha m ( 19 90) f or mul at ed t hei r goal -set t i n g t heor y. T hi s t heor y wa s co mpose d accor di ng t o t he r esul t s of o ver mor e t han f o ur decades of r esear ch . Based on mor e t han 40.00 0 par t i ci pan t s, si t uat ed o ver at l ea st 8 count r i es, r esear c her s wer e abl e t o ma ke a val i d st at e ment about t he ef f ect s o f goal s on per f or manc e ( Loc ke & Lat ha m, 2002; Mi t chel l & D ani el s, 200 3) .
T heor y f oun d a posi t i ve l i near f unct i on i n t h e f act t hat t he hi ghest and most di f f i cul t goal s pr od uce d t he hi ghest l e vel of ef f or t and per f or manc e ( Loc ke and Lat ha m, 1990) . Fur t he r mor e, t he t heor y f oun d t hat speci f i c di f f i cul t goal s consi st ent l y l ed t o hi gher per f or mance t ha n ur gi n g peopl e t o “ do t hei r best ”. Al t hou gh t her e i s a hi gh mot i vat i onal co mp onent i n “do your best goal s”, t he y do not cr eat e an ext er nal r ef er ent and t her ef or e l ead t o a wi de r an ge o f per f or mance l evel s ( Loc ke & Lat ha m, 20 06; Ede n, 19 88) . When a goal i s speci f i ed,
per f or mance i s mor e f ocused. It i s t hen t hat goal at t ai n ment al so e nabl es a basi s f or j udgi n g per f or ma n ce ( Loc ke, Chah, Har r i son & Lust gar t en, 1 9 89) . It has t o b e sai d t hat speci f yi n g a goal does not di r ect l y l ead t o hi gher per f or m ance. Mor eo ver , i t cr eat es a l ower var i at i on i n t he per f or man ce l evel a nd f or t hat r e ason ma kes mor e al i gned t h ou ght s about suf f i ci ent per f o r mance possi bl e ( Loc ke, Chah , Har r i sson & Lust gar t e n, 1989) .
The hi g h perf orm ance cycl e
t he t ask/ goal i s at t ai nabl e ( Lat ha m a nd Lo c ke, 2007; Loc ke an d La t ha m; 2002) and t hey don’ t f eel sat i sf i ed wi t h eas y t o at t ai n l ower goal s ( L oc ke and Lat ha m, 1990) . When a goal i s i mpor t ant i n t he vi ew of an e mpl o yee ( t he y f eel t ha t t he goal r eal l y cont r i but es t o so met hi ng) at t ai n ment i s mor e i mpor t ant and e mpl o y ees out per f or m t hei r col l eagues who d o not possess t hi s vi e w ( Lat ha m & Loc ke, 2 007) . Loc ke and Lat ha m ( 19 90) used t h ese t wo t hou ght s as t h e st ar t i ng p oi nt f or t he i r t heor et i c f r ame wor k, t he Hi gh P er f or ma nce C ycl e ( HP C) as can be seen i n f i gur e 1. T he y co mbi ned t hi s wi t h t he i r goal set t i n g t he or y, t her eby st at i n g t hat w hen e mpl o yees ar e conf r ont ed wi t h hi gh “de ma nds”, possess hi gh sel f -ef f i cac y a nd f i nd t he goal i mpor t ant , per f or manc e wi l l i ncr ease ( Sel de n and Br ewer , 2000) . Mor eover , i t out l i nes how a per son’ s per f or mance ca n be enhanced b y goal s and how t hi s hi gh per f or mance can l ead t o r ewar ds an d t her ef or e j ob sat i sf act i on ( Selden and Br ewer , 2 000) . It i s t h i s Hi gh Per f or mance C ycl e t hat i s one of t he mai n co mpone nt s of a hi gh per f or mance or gani zat i on ( Bec ker and Husel i d, 1998) . One of t he ot her i mp or t ant ef f ect s of t he HP C i s t hat goal set t i n g a f f ect s j ob sat i sf act i on and, as an i ndi r ect ef f ect , i ncr eases co mmi t ment t o t he or ga ni zat i on dur i ng f ut ur e chal l en ges. T he nat ur e of t hi s pr ocess i s r ecur si ve ( I l i es and J udge, 2005) . T hi s r el at i onshi p was f i r st l y f ound b y Loc ke an d Lat ha m ( 1 990) and al t hough so me hesi t at i on was a ppar ent , r ecen t r esear ch cl ear l y de m onst r at ed t hi s ef f ect ( J udge et al ., 2 0 01) . As seen i n t he hi gh per f or mance c ycl e, s ever al
F i g 1 : T h e h i g h p e r fo r m a n c e c y c l e ( La t h a m & L o c k e , 2 0 0 7 )
Goal m echa ni sm s
ph ysi ol o gi cal i ndi cat o r s of ef f or t ( Sal es, 197 0) . Impor t ant l y, t hi s w as onl y t he case f or hi gh goal s ( L ocke & Lat ha m, 20 02) . T he t hi r d ef f ect t hat goal s e nhance i s t hat t hey af f ect p er si st ence. LaP or t e & Nat h ( 1976) f ound t hat whe n peopl e ar e abl e t o deci de ho w mu ch t i me t he y s pent on a goal , hi gh goal s i ncr ease t he ef f or t . Fur t her mor e, i t i s t he case t hat when hi gh go al s ar e set , peopl e d o not st op unt i l t hi s goal i s r eached ( B andur a, 198 6; LaP or t e & Nat h , 197 6) . T he de adl i nes a per son set s can al so h ave a n i nf l uence o n go al per si st ence. A per s o n can deci de t o put a l ot of ef f or t i n a hi gh goal i n a s mal l a mount of t i me or ca n ma ke t he
deadl i ne wi der , whi ch wi l l decr ease t he l e vel of ef f or t and t her ef or e per si st ence ( Br ya n and Loc ke, 196 7b; Lat ha m and Loc ke , 1975) . T he l ast mech ani s m b y whi ch goal s af f ect per f or man ce i s t hat t he y l ead t o t he ar ousal , di sco ver y and/ or use of t ask-r el e vant kn owl ed ge ( Wo od & Loc ke, 19 90) . Resear ch f ound t h at when pe opl e have a t as k-goal , t he y aut o mat i cal l y use t he kn owl ed ge t he y de vel oped ear l i er i n l i f e t o r each goal at t ai n ment ( Lat ha m & K i n ne, 1974) . Assi gni n g goal s f or whi ch peopl e do n ot ha ve an aut o mat i c pl an, ma kes t hat a r eper t oi r e of s ki l l s has t o get qui ckl y co mbi ned i n o r der t o r each t he goal ( Lat ha m and Bal des, 1 975) . If t he goal i s co mpl et el y ne w t o p eopl e, a st r at e gi c pl an t o r each t hi s goal wi l l act i vel y get devel o ped ( S mi t h, L oc ke & Bar r y, 1 990) . Set t i ng ef f ect i ve t as k st r a t egi es i s so met hi n g wher e cons ci ous goal s ar e a good mechani s m f or ( L oc ke and Lat ha m, 1990) . T hese t as k st r at egi es ar e e ven mor e ef f ect i ve when a per son has hi gh sel f -ef f i cacy ( S mi t h et al ., 1990) .
Moderat ors of hi gh p erf orm ance
T he moder at or s of t he hi gh per f or mance c ycl e ar e t he f act or s of go al set t i ng t hat have t he most i nf l uenc e on sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i n g. Per cept i o ns of t hese moder at or s ar e i mpor t ant because t he y ca n i nf l uence t he l e vel of s at i sf act i on of e mpl o yees wi t h goal s et t i ng. T her ef or e i t ca n al so ma ke cl ear wh at can be cha n ged t o ma ke t he vi ew mor e posi t i ve ( Lee, Bob ko , Ear l ey and Loc ke, 19 91) .
t hi s capaci t y ( Sel den & Br e wer , 2 000) . T hi s happens r e gar dl ess of t he l e vel of t he goal . Ho we ver , when t he goal exceeds a per s on’ s abi l i t y, goal set t i ng does n ot appear t o ha ve a si gni f i cant ef f ect ( Sel den & Br ewer , 2 000) . It can t her ef or e be sai d t hat abi l i t y has an i nf l uence on t he ef f ec t of goal set t i n g. How ever , abi l i t y as such does n ot see m t o i nf l uence t he sat i sf act i on l evel wi t h goal set t i ng i n a di r ect wa y. Mor eo ver , t he sa t i sf act i on l evel wi t h g oal set t i ng ca n be i nf l uenced b y t he mana ger b y keepi n g a bi l i t y i n mi nd dur i n g t he goal set t i n g pr oces s. It i s t her ef or e t hat I su ggest t hat t he sat i sf act i on l evel wi t h goal set t i ng wi l l be hi gher when a mana ger kee ps t he abi l i t y of t he e mpl o yee i n mi nd d ur i n g t he go al set t i ng pr ocess .
Hyp 1: S at i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng wi l l be hi gher when a manage r keeps abi l i t y i n mi nd duri ng t he goal set t i ng proce ss.
Abi l i t y al so i nf l uences goal set t i ng i n such a wa y t hat i t ma kes co m mi t ment t o t he goal easi er . If peopl e have t he abi l i t y t o r ea ch t hei r goal s, co m mi t ment i s hi gher . T hi s concept of goal -c o mmi t ment w as f i r st d i scover ed b y L oc ke an d Lat ha m ( 1990) wh o r ef er r ed t o i t as anot her aspect t h at has a si gni f i cant mo der at i ng ef f ect on t he goal set t i n g t he or y. It i s e mpi r i cal l y t est ed t hat t he co gni t i ve, beha vi or al and af f ect i ve as pect of co mmi t ment has a pos i t i ve ef f ect on per f or m ance ( Bi pp an d K l ei ngel d, 20 11; Loc ke and Lat ha m, 1990) . Co mmi t ment t o a goal ma kes t hat an e mpl o yee i s det er mi ne d and f ocussed t o r eac h t hi s goal . When di f f i cul t y of t he goal r i ses, co mmi t me n t beco mes mor e i mpor t ant and r el e vant ( K l ei n, Wesson, Hol l enbec k & Al ge, 1 999) . T hi s because of t he f act t hat r eachi n g a hi gh goal i s nor mal l y associ at ed w i t h l ow chances of suc cess and t her ef or e hi gher co mmi t ment and mor e ef f or t i s nee ded t o r each t hi s goal , so met hi n g whi ch c o mmi t ment
f aci l i t at es ( Er ez and Z i don, 198 4) . A not her f act or t hat see ms t o s m oot h t he pr ogr ess of t hi s goal c o mmi t ment i s t he f eel i ng of peer pr essur e t o per f or m wel l ( Sel den and Br ewer , 2 000) . If peopl e f eel t h at t hey get r eco gni zed f or t hei r acco mpl i sh ment s, goal co mmi t ment wi l l be h i gher ( Sel de n and Br e wer , 200 0) . Lat ha m an d Sei j t s ( 1999) f ound t hat , i n or de r t o enhance co m mi t m ent ,
de monst r at i on of t he r el evance and i mpor t an ce of goal s t o e mpl o ye es i s necessar y. So, t he mana ger has t o pr o vi de cl ar i t y r e gar d i ng t he goal s. T hi s sho ws t hat
Manager s see m t o ha ve a l ot of i nf l uence o n t hi s l evel of co mmi t ment ( K l ei n et al ., 1999) a nd i t i s t he r ef or e t hat I can su gge st t hat co mmi t ment wi l l be an essent i al aspect i n t he enhance ment of sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i n g.
Hyp 2a: Goal c om mi t ment wi l l be hi gher w hen a manager out l i nes rel evance and i mport a nce(rat i onal e ) of t he g oal s
Hyp 2b: Goal c om mi t ment wi l l be hi gher w hen a manager creat es goal cl ari t y
Hyp.2c: S at i sf act i on w i t h goal set t i ng wi l l be hi gher w hen goal com mi t ment i s present .
Anot her moder at or i s t ask c o mpl exi t y. Wood , Ment o and Loc ke ( 1 9 87) concl uded t hat t ask c o mpl exi t y h as an enor mous i mpact on per f or ma nce. Whe n we t a ke a cl oser l ook at t he ef f e ct of goal set t i n g, di f f er ences ar e pr esent be t ween eas y an d co mpl ex t as ks . Go al s et t i ng has a l ar ger ef f e ct on eas y t as ks ( Loc ke and Lat ha m, 2002) . If a per s on has t o r esol ve a co mpl ex t ask, t he y sho ul d posse s t he abi l i t y t o di scover an appr o pr i at e t ask st r at egy. T he ef f ect s of goal s ar e t hen dependent o n t hi s abi l i t y, whi ch var i es wi t hi n peopl e ( L oc ke a nd Lat ha m, 2002) . So when a per son does n ot posses t hi s abi l i t y, c o mpl ex t asks l ead t o l ow er goa l ef f ect s. It i s t her ef or e t hat t he ef f ect si ze f or goal set t i n g i s s mal l er on c o mpl ex t asks t han si mpl e t as ks ( Wood, Ment o and Loc ke, 19 8 7) . So when a n or gani zat i on deci des t o i mpl e ment a co mpl ex goal , t he abi l i t y of an e mpl o yee sh oul d be i n r el at i on t o t he co mpl exi t y of t hi s goa l . It i s t her ef or e t hat I suggest t hat sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng wi l l be hi gher when a mana ger i mpl e ment s a co mpl ex goal t hat i s i n r el at i on t o t he abi l i t y of t he e mpl o yee.
Hyp 3: S at i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng wi l l be hi gher when t he co mpl exi t y of t he t ask i s rel at ed t o t he abi l i t y of an e mpl o yee.
t her ef or e do not exper i ence t he benef i ci al as pect s of goal set t i n g o n per f or mance ( Loc ke and Lat ha m, 2 002) . Mor eo ver , when an e mpl o yee does not r ecei ve
f eedback, ef f or t t o r ea ch t he goal can not be i ncr eased because t her e i s no r ef er ence i n what t o i mpr o ve ( Mat sui , O kad a and Inosi t ha, 1983) . E mpi r i cal
r esear ch conf i r med t hi s moder at i n g ef f ect of i mpr o ved goal ef f ect s when f eedbac k was pr esent ( C ho kar a nd Wal l i n, 1984; K i m, 1984; Re ber and Wal l i n, 1984;
Bandur a an d Cer vo ne, 1983; Bec ker , 197 8) . Yet , i t i s not sai d t hat t hi s f eedbac k di r ect l y i mpr o ves per f or mance of e ver y e mpl oyee . Mor eo ver , i t i s sai d t o ha ve t he most si gni f i cant ef f ect wi t h under achi e ver s ( Mat sui , O kada a nd Mi zu guchi , 19 83) . T o concl ude, Loc ke an d Henne ( 1986) st at e t hat f eedbac k i s an ess ent i al condi t i on f or go al set t i ng t o ha ve ad vant a geous ef f ect s . It i s t her ef or e t hat I suggest t hat i n or der t o cr eat e a hi gh sat i sf act i on l evel of e mpl o yees wi t h goal se t t i ng, f eed bac k shoul d be pr o vi ded.
Hyp 4. A manager sho ul d provi de f eedback i n order t o en hance sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng.
Si t uat i onal const r ai nt s i s t he l ast moder at or and was f i r st l y def i ne d b y Hol l enbec k and K l ei n ( 1987) . T he y f o und t hat si t uat i ona l const r ai nt s coul d be a possi bl e ant ecedent of goal co mmi t ment . Si t uat i onal const r ai nt s ar e def i ne d as t he f eat ur es of a wor k en vi r on ment t hat act as obst acl es t o per f or mance b y pr e vent i ng
e mpl o yees f r o m f ul l y t r ansl at i ng t hei r abi l i t y and mot i vat i on i nt o p er f or ma nce ( Pet er s, O’ Co nner & E ul ber g, 1985) . When e mpl o yees enc ount er t h ese const r ai nt s, f or exa mpl e a l ac k of t i me , mat er i al or i nf or mat i on, t he y beco me f r ust r at ed and mot i vat i on t o r each t h e goal dr ops ( K l ei n & K i m, 1998) . E ven mor e, t hi s
f r ust r at i on l eads t o r educed expect anc y per c ept i ons ( Pet er s et al ., 1982) and t hi s most l y l eads t o l o wer goal c o mmi t ment ( Hol l enbeck & K l ei n, 1987 ) . T he
una vai l abl e but e mpl o yees st i l l ha ve t o set goal s, mot i vat i on wi l l d r op and so t he ef f ect of go al set t i ng wi l l decr ease.
Hyp 5: Si t uat i on al con st rai nt s l ower t he sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng.
Q uest i onnai re of percept i ons of t he goal s et t i ng process
T he moder at or s me nt i oned abo ve ha ve an un deni abl e ef f ect on t he pr ocess of goal set t i ng. Per cept i ons ab out t hese mo der at or s s ee m t o i nf l uence t he s at i sf act i on of e mpl o yees wi t h goal s et t i ng. In or der t o go i n mor e dept h wi t h t he moder at or s of i nf l uence and t he ot he r f act or s of t he hi gh p er f or ma nce ci r cl e ( r ew ar ds) , Loc ke and Lat ha m ( 1984) de vel ope d a quest i on nai r e t hat ai med t o measur e t he
per cept i ons about t hes e f act or s. Ext ensi ve r e sear ch ext ended an d a dj ust ed t hi s quest i onnai r e t o f ul l y measur e t he f act or s of i nf l uence on go al set t i ng ( Lee et al ., 1990; Put z a nd Leh ner , 2002) . T en goal set t i ng co mponent s wer e i dent i f i ed t o have an i nf l uence on t he per cept i ons of t he pr ocedur e. Put z and L ehner ( 2002) di vi ded t hese t en co m ponent s o ver t hr ee cat egor i es: cont ent of go al s, pr ocesses i n dya d and set t i n g. T he i nf l uence a mana ger c an ha ve on t hese t hr ee cat egor i es i s unquest i onabl e. So i n or der t o see w hat a ma nager can do best i n o r der t o enhance sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng, t hese f act or s h ave t o be measur ed.
Cont ent of goal s. Goa l cl ar i t y i s t he l e vel of cl ar i t y of goal s and t h e pr i or i zat i on of t hose goal s ( Lee et al ., 1991) . T he cl ear er a goal i s st at ed f or an e mpl o yee , t he hi gher t he sat i sf act i on wi t h t he pr ocess of goal set t i ng an d t hi s wi l l t her ef or e l ead t o hi gher per f or manc e ( Saw yer , 1 992) . Mana ger s of t en ha ve an i nf l uence on t he goal s bei n g st at ed ( Ca mpbel l and Gi n gr i ch, 1986) and on t he cl ar i t y of t hese goal s. So i t i s s uppose d t hat when goal s ar e st at ed cl ear l y b y a ma nager , sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng wi l l be pr esent .
Hyp. 6: Goal cl ari t y e nhances sat i sf act i on w i t h goal set t i ng.
sat i sf act i on wi t h t he goal decr eases and f ol l owi n g t hat , per f or man ce wi l l f al l down ( Bi pp and K l ei n gel d, 2011) . Goal conf l i ct e speci al l y occur s whe n ext er nal l y
i mposed goal s ar e con f l i ct i ng wi t h o wn goal s, so met hi n g a mana ge r of t en has i nf l uence on ( Er e z, Ea r l ey and Hul i n, 1985) . It i s t her ef or e t hat I s uggest t hat when go al conf l i ct i s hi gh , sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng wi l l be n egat i ve.
Hyp. 7: Go al conf l i ct wi l l decrease sat i sf act i on wi t h goal s et t i ng.
In r el at i on t o goal con f l i ct , t her e i s t he co mp onent of goal st r ess. T hi s i s cr eat ed when an e mpl o yee f eel s excessi ve di f f i cul t y and st r essf ul ness r e gar di ng t hei r goal s a nd i s o ver l oa de d ( Put z and Lehner , 20 02) . T hi s can be en han ced b y pr essur e f r o m peer s as wel l as mana ger s, es peci al l y i n per f or mance appr ai s al s( Ivanece vi ch, 1982) .Fol l o wi n g t hat , a f ai l ur e t o at t ai n goal s i s t he r esul t ( Lee et al ., 1991) .
Hyp. 8: Goal st ress ha s a negat i ve i nf l uence on t he sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng.
D ysf unct i onal ef f ect s ar e def i ned as t he p uni t i ve aspect s of goal se t t i ng ( Lee et al ., 1991) . T hey ha ve a ne gat i ve ef f ect on j ob sat i sf act i on ( Lee et al ., 1991) . T hi s because of t he f act t ha t mana ger s i ncl ude t he use of goal s t o puni sh e mpl o yees r at her t han t o i mpr o ve per f or mance. Fur t her mor e, t he mana ger ’ s u nwi l l i ngness t o ad mi t mi st a kes c oncer ni ng t he subor di nat es goal s i s al so a d ysf u nc t i onal ef f ect of goal set t i n g ( Lee et al . , 1991; Bi pp and K l ei ngel d, 2011; Loc ke a nd Lat ha m, 1984) . When t her e ar e man y d ysf unct i onal e f f ect s of goal s , e mpl o yees ar e t hou ght t o f i nd t he pr ocess of goal set t i n g not benef i ci al . It i s t her ef or e t ha t I su ggest t hat dysf u nct i onal ef f ect s wi l l decr ease sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i n g.
Hyp. 9: Dysf unct i onal ef f ect s have a negat i v e i nf l uence on t he s at i sf act i on of empl oyees wi t h goa l set t i ng.
Processes i n dy ad. Su per vi sor y suppor t sho ws a st r on g posi t i ve r e l at i onshi p wi t h
supposed t o be posi t i ve. It i s t her ef or e t hat I su ggest t hat w hen sup por t i s pr ovi de d, e mpl o yees a r e mor e sat i sf i ed wi t h goal set t i n g.
Hyp. 1 0: Supervi sory support has a posi t i ve i nf l uence on t he sat i sf act i on l evel of goal set t i ng.
Par t i ci pat i on of t he l eader i n goal set t i n g i s of even gr eat er i mpor t ance. Se ver al st udi es ( Wagner , 1994 ; Lat ha m et al . , 198 8) pr ove d t hat per f or ma n ce i ncr eased si gni f i cant l y w hen l ea der s wer e i n vol ve d i n t he pr ocess of goal s et t i ng. As sai d b y Wagner ( 1 994) i t i s t h e “t el l -and -sel l ” or par t i ci pat i ve appr oach of goal set t i n g t hat i nf l uences per f or mance i n a posi t i ve wa y. T he t el l -and -sel l ap pr oach wi l l use t he nor mal i nst r uct i on s pl us a r at i onal e f or wh y t he goal has t o be set i n t hat wa y ( Lat ha m et al . , 198 8) . T o concl ude, i t can be expect ed t hat par t i ci p at i on i n t he goal set t i n g pr ocess w i l l i ncr ease t he sat i sf act i on l evel wi t h goal s et t i ng.
Hyp. 1 1: Part i ci pat i on of t he ma nager i n goa l set t i ng wi l l i ncrease t he sat i sf act i on l evel .
When we l oo k at anot her aspect t hat i nf l uen ces sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng, we shoul d keep i n mi nd h ow an e mpl o yee sees t he qual i t y of t he per f o r mance
i nt er vi ew. T hese i nt er vi e ws can l ead t o per f or mance i mpr o ve ment s onl y w hen e mpl o yees f eel t hat t h ey r es ul t ed i n speci f i c goal s f or t he f ut ur e ( Put z and Lehner , 2002) . When peopl e h ave a per f or ma nce i nt e r vi ew i n w hi ch t her e i s a l ac k of such speci f i c goal s, per cept i ons of goal set t i n g wi l l beco me ne gat i ve . T hi s happens because of t he f act t ha t t hey do not s ee t he u nder l yi n g r eason f or goal set t i ng. It i s t her ef or e t hat i t can b e su ggest ed t hat t he q ual i t y of a per f or manc e i nt er vi ew i s r el at ed t o t he sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i n g.
Hyp. 1 2: A hi gh qual i t y perf ormance i nt ervi ew creat es a hi gher sat i sf act i on l evel wi t h goal set t i ng .
t o achi eve a per sonal goal ( Recht er , 2 010) . Fur t her mor e, sel f -ef f i cacy can al so be enhanced b y f eedbac k ( Recht er , 2010) . Posi t i ve f ee dbac k i s al so sai d t o i nf l uence mot i vat i on w hen appl i ed t o peopl e wor ki n g on pr o mot i on t as ks r at her t han on pr event i on t as ks ( V an Di j k & K l u ger , 2010) . Pr o vi di n g f eedbac k i s of t en l i nked wi t h pr o vi di n g t he r at i onal e of t he f eedbac k ( Loc ke & Lat ha m, 1 98 4) . E mpl o yees shoul d under st and wh y goal s ar e set and f ee dbac k about t hi s s houl d be pr o vi ded ( Lee et al ., 19 91) . If t hi s suppoer t i ve f eedba ck i s not pr o vi ded b y t he super vi sor , e mpl o yees ar e s uppose d t o ha ve a ne gat i ve p er cept i on about goal s et t i ng.
Hyp. 1 3: Supervi sory f eedback abo ut goal s i s needed t o cre at e sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng.
Set t i ng. Int r i nsi c mot i vat i on i s e nhanced b y r ewar ds. Howe ver , t he i nf l uence of
l eader s on t he ascr i pt i on of t hese r e war ds i s t he r eal mot i vat i n g f ac t or . Br ow n and Pet er son ( 1993) f ou nd a posi t i ve r el at i on bet ween r ewar ds and sat i sf act i on. T hi s st at es t hat when a l ead er can pr o vi de j ob sec ur i t y, i ncr ease of sal ar y a nd
pr o mot i on as a r ewar d f or goal success, sat i sf act i on wi t h t he j ob wi l l i ncr ease. T her eby per f or mance wi l l be enhanced . If t h e r ewar ds ar e n ot r el at ed t o goal s, e mpl o yees of t en de vel op a ne gat i ve f eel i n g a gai nst goal set t i ng. T hey do not see t he val ua bl e aspect s a nymor e. It i s t her ef or e t hat i t can be su ggest ed t hat r ewar ds f aci l i t at e posi t i ve per c ept i ons of goal set t i n g onl y w hen t he y ar e i n r el at i on wi t h t he goal s bei n g set .
Hyp. 1 4: Re wards i n r el at i on t o goal s enh an ce sat i sf act i on wi t h go al set t i ng.
Or gani zat i onal f aci l i t at i on of goal -at t ai n men t i s as wel l a f act or t h at i nf l uences t he ef f ect s of goal set t i ng. When we t al k abo ut t hese or gani zat i onal f aci l i t at or s we usual l y t hi n k about t i me, mone y, equi p ment et c. ( Put z and Lehner , 2002) . It i s especi al l y t he s uper vi s or ’ s ef f or t t hat f aci l i t at es goal acco mpl i sh me nt ( K l ei n and K i m, 1998) . It c an be t he case t hat r esour ces f or goal at t ai n ment ar e not f aci l i t at ed by t he or gani zat i on. If so, per cept i ons of t he goal set t i ng pr ocess s ee m t o be
t her ef or e t hat I su gges t t hat or ga ni zat i onal f aci l i t at i on of goal achi eve ment has a posi t i ve ef f ect on sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng.
Hyp 15 . Or gani zat i ona l f aci l i t at i on of goal a t t ai nment has a posi t i ve ef f ect on sat i sf act i on wi t h g oal set t i ng.
In r el at i on t o t hi s or ga ni zat i onal f aci l i t at i on, i t i s def i ni t el y t he cas e t hat mana ger s sh oul d al so pr ovi de t he t ool s need ed f or t he de vel op men t of goal
ef f i cacy ( Lee et al ., 1 991) . Wi t hout t hi s goa l ef f i cacy, a n e mpl o ye e exper i ences
di f f i cul t y i n de vel opi n g act i on pl ans and st r at egi es ( Ear l y, 1985; C a mpbel l & Gi n gr i ch, 19 86) . T hi s i ncr ease of goal ef f i cacy wi l l happen whe n t he or gani zat i on pr ovi des si gni f i cant j ob t r ai ni ng, i s i n vol ved i n t he cr eat i on of ef f e ct i ve act i on pl ans and gi ves f ee dba ck, t her eb y ma ki n g t he j ob mor e i nt er est i ng ( Lee et al ., 1991) . Es peci al l y t hi s f aci l i t at i on of j ob t r ai ni ng ma kes t hat i n t he end an
e mpl o yee, who wor ks har d, has hi gh goal ef f i cacy an d can at t ai n t h e goal s st at ed ( Er ez & K anf er , 1 983) . It i s t her ef or e t hat I suggest t hat whe n a m anager i ncr eases goal ef f i cac y, sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i n g wi l l be of a hi gher l e vel .
Hyp 16 . Cre at i ng Go al ef f i cacy wi l l i ncrease t he l evel of sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng.
F i gu r e 1 : T h e h yp o t h e s e s i n f l u e n c e o f a m a n a g e r o n t h e g o a l s e t t i n g c o m p o n e n t s .
METH O D Set t i ng and P art i ci pant s
T he cur r ent r esear ch t oo k pl ace i n an i n vest ment ban k i n t he Net h er l ands.
T he par t i ci pant sampl e was co mposed of e mp l oyees i n vol ved i n t he pr ocess of goal set t i ng. At t he t i me of wr i t i ng, t he or ga ni zat i on had a t ot al of 563 e mpl o yees, al l of whi ch ha d t o do wi t h t he pr ocess of goal s et t i ng. T he co mpan y u ses a
per f or mance mana ge m ent syst e m i n whi ch g oal -set t i n g pl a ys a n i mpor t ant par t . Manager a nd e mpl o ye e def i ne and a gr ee on t ar get s at t he be gi nni n g of t he year . T hese t ar get s ar e al i gn ed wi t h t he b usi ness goal s of t he co mpan y. Dur i n g t he Mi d Year Re vi e w mana ger and e mpl o yee e val uat e t he pr o gr ess on goal s and per sonal devel o p ment a nd at t h e end of t he year t he mana ger ma kes a f i nal appr ai sal ( based on f eedbac k f r o m col l eagues and an e mpl o yee 's sel f assess ment ) a nd det er mi nes t he o ver al l per f or manc e r at i ng. T hi s means t hat ever ybod y i n t he c o mpan y i s i nvol ved i n t he goal se t t i ng pr ocess and t her e f or e has an opi ni o n ab out i t .
Manager s who ar e act i vel y i n vol ved i n goal set t i ng of e mpl o yees a nd j udgment on t hese aspect s ar e cal l ed ‘ Fi r st Re vi ewer ’ .
Manager
Cont ent of goal s
Goal cl ar i t y + Goal conf l i ct - Goal st r ess -
D ysf unct i onal ef f ect s -
Pr ocess i n D yad
Super vi sor y sup por t / Par t i ci pat i on + Qual i t y of per f or ma nc e i nt er vi ew + Super vi sor y f eedbac k +
Set t i ng
Rewar ds +
Or gani zat i onal f aci l i t at i on + Goal ef f i cac y +
T he or gani zat i on of t hi s r esear ch di d not al l ow t he pr o vi si o n of qu est i onnai r es t o t he e mpl o yees because of an o ver al l o ver l oad . It was t her ef or e t hat st r uct ur ed i nt er vi ews wer e co ndu ct ed. In or der t o get a go od r epr esent at i on of t he
or gani zat i on, par t i ci pant s wer e sel ect ed out of t he di f f er ent busi ne ss uni t s. T he i nvest ment ban k consi st s of 5 di f f er ent busi ness uni t s and wi t hi n t hese busi ness uni t s, 50 t ea ms wer e p r esent . Ho we ver , n ot a l l t eams wer e r el e vant f or t he subj ect of t hi s r esear ch becau se of t he f act t hat so m e di d not ha ve a di r ect f i r st r evi ewer . It i s t her ef or e t hat t he HR b usi ness par t ner s s el ect ed t he r el evant t ea ms. In t hese t eams, bot h mana ger s and subor di nat es wer e oper at i ng. T he Int er n at i onal of f i ces wer e al so appr oac hed and t hei r H R Busi ness par t ner sel ect ed t he r el evant
par t i ci pant s. Howe ver , of t hese par t i ci pant s, onl y 2 wer e abl e t o co oper at e. Mor eover , t hese par t i c i pant s wer e e mpl o yees of Dut ch bac kgr oun d, pl aced i n t he di f f er ent i nt er nat i onal of f i ces. T her ef or e a co mpar i son bet ween co unt r i es was not si gni f i cant .
T he par t i ci pant s wer e sel ect ed accor di n g t o t hei r f unct i on l e vel , bu si ness uni t , de mo gr aphi c var i abl es and past ex per i ence wi t h t ar get set t i n g. A f i r st r evi ewer and a s ubor di nat e of e ver y t ea m wer e i nvi t ed f or an i nt er vi ew. T he r esponse r at e was 75% whi ch made t he t ot al of 60 par t i ci pant s. Ge nder was di vi ded as f ol l owi n g, t her e wer e 13 f e mal e a nd 43 mal e par t i ci pant s wi t hi n t he
par t i ci pant sa mpl e. T h e mean a ge of t he r esp ondent s was 39.6 9 yea r s.
In or d er t o see t he sat i sf act i on l evel wi t h t he el e ment s of goal set t i ng, par t i ci pant s had t o ans wer t he adj ust ed goal set t i ng quest i on nai r e o f Loc ke and Lat ha m ( 19 84) dur i n g t he i nt er vi ew . Fur t her mor e, ot her quest i ons wer e as ked r egar di n g goal set t i n g. T he i nt er vi ew was t he sa me f or t he f i r st -r e vi ewer and t he subor di nat e i n or der t o cr eat e hi gh val i di t y. T he i nt er vi ew t oo k hal f an hour , was conduct ed i n En gl i sh a nd had a one -on -one s et up ( see appen di x A) .
Measures
In or d er t o ans wer t he r esear ch quest i on, dat a was gat her ed on per c ept i ons of t he goal set t i n g c o mp onen t s, t he mo der at or s of t he hi gh per f or mance c ycl e an d o ver al l sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng. T he r esear ch s t ar t ed wi t h quest i ons a bout
de mo gr aphi cal var i abl es, such as a ge and ge nder , t hi s t o cont r ol f o r t he ef f ect of gen der , a ge a nd t enur e on t he r el at i onshi p be t ween per cept i ons an d o ver al l sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng.
The mo derat ors of t he hi gh perf orma nce cycl e wer e measur ed wi t h t he quest i ons
used b y Sel den and Br ewer ( 2000) t o t est t he val i di t y of t he hi gh p er f or ma nce cycl e. T hese quest i ons had t o be answer ed w i t h a gr a de r an gi n g f r o m 1( st r on gl y di sagr ee) – 5( st r on gl y agr ee) an d an o pen ans wer and ca n be f ou nd i n t he
appendi x. Because of an i nt er vi e w set t i n g, e l abor at i on on t he ques t i ons was al so wr i t t en down t o ha ve mor e concr et e an swer s . Based on Sel de n and Br ewer ( 200 0) ,
abi l i t y, t ask compl exi t y and si t uat i onal const rai nt s wer e measur ed wi t h one
quest i on. Feed back an d Co mmi t ment ho we ver , wer e bot h meas ur ed wi t h mor e quest i ons. It was t her ef or e t hat Cr onbach’ s a l pha had t o be conduct ed. Ho we ver , t hi s al pha was n e gat i ve and del et i on of a n i t e m di d n ot ma ke i t an y hi gher .
For t unat el y, t he const r uct was al r ead y used b y Sel den an d Br e wer ( 2000) and i t i s t her ef or e t hat we can assu me t hat t hese ques t i ons i ndeed me asur e t he const r uct s.
Goal Set t i ng Quest i on nai re. In or der t o mea sur e t he per cept i ons o f t he
0.79 and consi st ed of 3 i t e ms. Goal st ress, whi ch w as meas ur ed w i t h 3 i t e ms as wel l , had an al pha of 0.61. Goal ef f i cacy wa s measur ed wi t h 4 i t e ms. Howe ver , one of t he i t e ms , i t e m ni ne, had a si gni f i cant i nf l uence on t he al p h a and was t her ef or e del et ed. T he i t em, “ I us ual l y f eel t hat I ha ve a sui t abl e o r ef f ect i ve act i on pl an or pl ans f o r r eachi ng my goal s” was not i nt er pr et ed b y t he par t i ci pant s as r el evant f or goal ef f i cacy an d t her ef or e s cor ed ver y l ow . Af t er del et i on, t he al pha was 0 .61. Super vi sory Feedback had a n al pha of 0 .7 and t he const r uct
Qual i t y of perf or manc e apprai sal had a Cr o nbach’ s al pha of 0.75. T he cat egor y
Rewards was measur e d wi t h 4 i t e ms. Howe v er , par t i ci pant s di d no t see m t o f i nd i t em 17 r el at ed t o t he const r uct . T hi s can be expl ai ned b y t he f act t hat par t i ci pant s di d not see t hi s i t e m a s an ef f ect of r eachi n g goal s but mor e as a n ef f ect of go al s i t sel f , so not as a r e wa r d f or r eachi n g t he go al . It was t her ef or e t ha t i t em 17 was del et ed t o cr eat e an al pha of 0.7 6. Goal conf l i ct was measur ed b y 8 i t e ms. T he al pha of t hi s const r uct was r el at i ve l ow , 0.5 3 , but del et i on of a n i t em di d n ot ma ke a si gni f i cant di f f er enc e. It i s t her ef or e t hat t he i t e ms wer e al l i ncl u ded i n t he anal ysi s. Orga ni zat i on al Faci l i t at i on had an al pha of 0.62 . T he con st r uct
Dysf unct i onal ef f ect s of goal s had a Cr on ba ch’ s al pha of 0. 61. Go al cl ari t y was
measur ed b y 4 i t e ms . “ I under st and exact l y what I a m supp osed t o do on my j ob” was one of t hese i t e ms and par t i ci pant s di d n ot see t he r el at i onshi p wi t h goal cl ar i t y. Mor eo ver , i t w as seen as a q uest i on r egar di n g nor mal wor k. T her ef or e, t hi s i t em was del et ed t o cr eat e an al pha of 0 .59 f or goal cl ar i t y.
Sat i sf act i on. In or der t o measur e t he o ver al l sat i sf act i on wi t h t he p r ocess of goal
set t i ng, f our quest i ons wer e as ked . T he answ er s wer e el abor at ed o n and as a f i nal concl usi on, e ver yb od y had t o gi ve a f i nal gr ade, r an gi n g f r o m 1 ( ver y di ssat i sf i ed) t o 10 ( ver y sat i sf i ed) . T o cr eat e an o ver al l scor e, t he ans wer s wer e anal yzed and gr aded and of t hat , an aver a ge was t a ke n. T h e Cr onbach’ s al p ha f or t hi s const r uct was 0.6 3.
St at i st i cal Anal ysi s
var i abl es wer e st andar di zed. Fur t her mor e, t h e cont r ol var i abl es we r e st andar di zed as wel l . T he i ndepend ent var i abl e sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng w as not
st andar di zed . T he r e gr essi on consi st ed of 3 s t eps. Fi r st l y t he cont r ol var i abl es wer e i nser t ed. St ep 2 cont r ol l ed f or t he ef f ect of t he mo der at or s a nd dur i n g st ep 3, t he goal set t i ng co mpo nent s wer e i nser t ed.
RES UL TS
Descri pt i ve st at i st i cs
In or d er t o see t he und er l yi n g cor r el at i ons be t ween t he var i abl es, a cor r el at i on anal ysi s was con duct e d. T abl e 1 di spl a ys t he se descr i pt i ve st at i st i cs and
cor r el at i ons f or t he va r i abl es used. Wi t h r e gar d t o t he cor r el at i ons bet ween t he i ndependent var i abl es and sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng, t he f ol l ow i ng ca n be concl uded. As su ggest ed, abi l i t y i s i ndeed c or r el at ed t o sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng ( r =. 53, p <.01) . A si gni f i cant p osi t i ve cor r el at i on bet ween commi t me nt and sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng can al so be f ou nd ( r =.31 , p<.0 5) . Li t er at ur e
f ur t her mor e su ggest ed t hat a cor r el at i on bet ween goal r at i onal e, goal cl ar i t y and co mmi t ment woul d be pr esent . Ho we ver , a si gni f i cant r el at i on wi t h co mmi t ment can onl y be f ound f or goal rat i onal e ( r =. 47, p<.01) an d not f or go al cl ar i t y ( r =.14, p= n.s.) . T he ne gat i ve cor r el at i on bet ween t ask co mpl exi t y and sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i n g was not suppor t ed b y t he r esul t s ( r = -. 08, p = n.s. ) . T he
cor r el at i on bet ween f e edback and sat i sf act i o n wi t h goal set t i n g ho we ver can be conf i r med ( r =. 46, p< . 01) . Al t hou gh l i t er at ur e su ggest ed a ne gat i ve cor r el at i on bet ween si t uat i onal co nst rai nt s and sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i n g, r esul t s coul d not f i nd si gni f i cant su ppor t f or t hi s ( r = -.23 , p = n .s.) .
When we l oo k at t he c or r el at i on bet ween t he goal set t i ng co mpone nt s and sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng i t can be st at ed t hat supervi sor supp o rt ( r =.49,
p<.01) , g oal ef f i cacy ( r =.49, p<.01) , supervi sory f eedback ( r = .32, p<.05) , perf ormance apprai sal ( r =.44, p<.01) , t angi bl e rewards ( r =.3, p< .05) and organi zat i onal f aci l i t at i on ( r =.56, p<.01) al l have a si gni f i cant po si t i ve
cor r el at i on. T he sugge st ed ne gat i ve cor r el at i on bet ween goal st ress and
H ypot hesi s t est
A l i near r e gr essi on an al ysi s was used t o t est t he ef f ect s of t he i nde pendent var i abl es pr edi ct ed i n t he h ypot hesi s. T he y wer e al l t hou ght t o ha ve a n i nf l uence on Sat i sf act i on wi t h g oal set t i ng. In or der t o t est t he h ypot hesi s, t h e cont r ol var i abl es wer e ent er ed i n st ep 1. Dur i n g st ep 2 t he i ndepen dent Z v ar i abl es of t he “hi gh per f or mance c yc l e moder at or s” wer e e nt er ed. St ep 3 consi st e d of ent er i n g t he st andar di ze d var i a bl es of t he “ goal set t i ng quest i onnai r e”. T ab l e 2 shows t hat i n st ep 1, t he c ont r ol var i abl es expl ai ned 0.1 3 var i ance of t he d epe ndent var i abl e
Sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng. T hese var i abl e s di d not si gni f i cant l y cont r i but e t o
t he pr edi ct i on of sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i n g ( R² = 0 .13) , F( 5,54) = 1.67, p = 0 . 16.
St ep 2 t est ed t he ef f ec t of t he var i abl es of t h e hi gh per f or ma nce c ycl e. T abl e 2 shows t hat t he se var i abl es e xpl ai ned 0.37 var i ance of t he d ependent var i abl e Sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng. T he y si gni f i cant l y pr e di ct Sat i sf act i on ( R² = 0.37) , F( 5,49) = 7.1 9, p < 0.01. H ypot hesi s 1 su ggest ed t hat abi l i t y has an ef f ect on sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng. T hi s hypot hesi s i s suppor t ed b y t he r esul t s of t abl e 2 ( b=0.22 , t =3.5 3, p < 0.01) . T he seco nd h ypot hesi s of t hi s r esear ch was t hat
commi t me nt has a posi t i ve ef f ect on sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i n g. T hi s was not
suppor t ed b y t he r esul t s ( b=0.12, t =1 .75, p = n.s.) . Li t er at ur e su ggest ed t hat Task
compl exi t y wo ul d ha ve a ne gat i ve ef f ect on s at i sf act i on wi t h goal s et t i ng.
Howe ver , t hi s r el at i on shi p has not bee n f oun d and t her ef or e h ypot h esi s 3 can not be suppor t ed ( b= -0.12 , t = -1 .79, p = n .s.) . H ypot hesi s 4 su ggest ed t hat f eedback about goal s woul d be posi t i ve r el at ed t o sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng. Ho we ver , t hi s can not be s uppor t ed b y t he r esul t s ( b=0 . 10, t =1.48 , p = n.s.) . When
Si t uat i onal const rai nt s ar e pr esent , sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i n g was supp osed t o be l ower . Ho we ver , t h i s ef f ect can not be co nf i r me d b y t he r esul t s of t he
par t i ci pant s ( b= -0 .06, t = -0. 86, p = n.s .) .
Tabl e 2
H i erarchi c regressi on anal ysi s of "m oderat ors of t he H P C" and " Goal set t i ng co m ponent s" o n Sat i sf act i on w i t h goal set t i ng
Sat i sf act i on St ep Vari abl e 1 2 3 1 Gender -0.1 0 -0.0 9 -0.0 2 A ge -0.1 4 -0.0 0 0.05 SBU 0.02 -0.0 0 0.08 Funct i on 0.24* 0.15 0.00 T i t l e 0.24 0.02 -0.1 7 2 Abi l i t y 0.22** 0.17* Co mmi t ment 0.12 0.10 T ask Co mpl exi t y -0.1 2 -0.0 6 Feedbac k 0.10 0.06
Si t uat i onal Const r ai nt s -0.0 6 0.04
3 Goal Cl ar i t y -0.1 4*
Goal Co nf l i ct -0.0 9
Goal St r ess 0.03
D ysf unct i onal Ef f ect s -0.0 7
Super vi sor supp or t / par t i ci pat i on -0.0 3
Per f or mance Appr ai sal -0.0 7
Super vi sor y Fee dbac k and Rat i onal e 0.43
T angi bl e Re war ds 0.03
Or gani zat i on Faci l i t at i on 0.25**
T hi s st ep was al so use d t o l oo k f or s uppor t f or t he h ypot hesi s. As st at ed by hypot hesi s 6, cl ari t y o f t he goal s i ndeed had a si gni f i cant ef f ect on sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i n g ( b= - 0.14, t = -2. 1, p <0.05) . How e ver , t he h ypot he si s st at ed a posi t i ve ef f ect . Goal c onf l i ct was t hou ght t o have a ne gat i ve ef f ect on sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i n g. T hi s was i ndeed t he case ( b= -0 .09, t = -1 .3, p = n .s.) al t hou gh t he ef f ect was not f o u nd t o be si gni f i cant . When goal st ress i s pr esent , sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i n g was t hou ght t o be l ower . Al t hough h yp ot hi ssi zed , t he r esul t s coul d not conf i r m t hi s ef f ect ( b= 0.03, t =0.3 7, p = n.s.) . Li t er at ur e f ur t her mor e showed a ne gat i ve ef f ect of Dysf unct i onal e f f ect s on sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i n g. T he r egr essi on anal ysi s di d sho w a ne gat i ve r el at i onshi p but t hi s w as not t hou ght t o be si gni f i cant ( b= - 0.07, t = -0. 93, p = n.s .) . When we t a ke a cl os er l ook at t he ef f ect of Supervi sor s upport and part i ci pat i on on sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i n g, a si gni f i cant conf i r mat i on of t he h ypot hesi s t hat t hi s woul d e nhanc e t hi s sat i sf act i on can not be f o und ( b= - 0.03, t = -0. 29, p = n.s .) . It was su pposed t hat i nvol ve ment i n t he perf ormance i nt ervi ew shoul d h a ve a si gn i f i cant posi t i ve ef f ect on sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i n g. Ho w ever , t hi s r el at i onshi p can not be c onf i r med by t he r esul t s ( b= -0 .07, t = -0 .69, p = n.s.) . In r el at i on t o t h i s, rewards i n l i ne wi t h goal s shoul d al so enhance t he sat i sf act i on l evel of e mpl o y ees wi t h goal set t i n g. Unf or t unat el y, t hi s can not be s uppor t ed b y t he r esul t s ( b= 0 .03, t =0. 46, p = n.s .) . A posi t i ve and si gni f i cant ef f ect can be f ound when we l oo k at t he r el at i onshi p b et ween
Organi zat i onal f aci l i t at i on and sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i n g ( b= 0 .25, t =3. 20, p
<0.01) . Goal ef f i cacy does al so ha ve a si gni f i cant ef f ect on sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng ( b= 0.20, t =2.5 8, p <0 .05) .
DISC US SIO N
t he goal set t i ng t heor y and t he Hi gh Per f or m ance C ycl e, se ver al el e ment s wer e i dent i f i ed t hat a mana ger was t hou ght t o ha ve an i nf l uence on . Fi r s t l y, i t was suggest ed t hat mana ge r s can ha ve a si gni f i cant i nf l uence on sat i sf a ct i on wi t h goal set t i ng b y keepi n g i n mi nd t he moder at or s o f t he Hi gh Per f or manc e C ycl e. T hi s r esear ch def i ni t el y ac knowl ed ges t he i mpor t a nce of t hese f act or s an d t hei r
cont r i but i on t o t he sat i sf act i on l evel of e mpl oyees wi t h goal set t i ng. T he a mou nt of var i ance expl ai ned by t he moder at or s of t he HP C on t he l e vel of sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i n g i s un deni abl e. Ho we ver , i t can not be sai d t hat t h ey se par at el y cont r i but e as muc h t o t he l evel of sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i n g. As was su ggest ed by h ypot hesi s 1, keepi ng i n mi n d abi l i t y of a n e mpl o yee whi l e set t i ng goal s has a si gni f i cant i nf l uence o n t he l e vel of sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i n g. Resul t s poi nt out t hat t hi s i s i ndeed t he case. A bi l i t y h owe ver , was t he onl y f act or of t he hi gh per f or mance c ycl e t hat i ndi vi d ual l y had a si gni f i cant i nf l uence on t he l evel of sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng. T he f act or co mmi t ment di d n ot pr es ent a si gni f i cant i nf l uence on sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng. Al t hou gh t her e was an i nf l uence on co mmi t ment when a m anager de monst r at es r el evance and i mpor t an ce of t he goal , t hi s de monst r at i on di d not di r ect l y l ead t o hi gher co mmi t ment . K l ei n et al ( 1999) poi nt ed out t hat t hi s e f f ect of co mmi t ment i s mor e i mpor t ant w hen goal s ar e
di f f i cul t t o at t ai n. Because of t he f act t hat m ost of t he par t i ci pant s poi nt ed out t hat t hei r goal s wer e not c hal l engi n g but eas y t o at t ai n, i t can be an e x pl anat i on f or t he non -si gni f i cant ef f ect of co mmi t ment o n sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng. In r el at i on t o t hi s, pr o vi di n g f eed back t o an e mpl o yee i s not si gni f i cant l y enha nci ng
sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng ei t her . An ex pl anat i on can be t hat par t i ci pant s poi nt ed out t hat cur r e nt l y f eedbac k i s not al wa ys t ar get r el at ed bu t mor eo ver f ocusi ng on t he da y t o da y t as ks. Lat ha m et al . ( 1988) f oun d t hat d ur i ng f ee dbac k t her e ar e mor e met hod s t o use; t he “t el l and sel l ” and “t el l ” met ho d. It can be t he case t hat dur i n g f eedb ack s essi on mana ger s onl y use t he “t el l ” met hod, l eadi n g t o a ne gat i ve i nt er pr et at i on of f eedbac k and i n r el at i on a l ower l e vel of sat i sf act i on
wi t h goal set t i n g. Mor eover , Anse el , Li e vens and Le vy ( 2007) f oun d t hat
e mpl o yees d on’ t see t he benef i ci al ef f ect s of t he f eedbac k and t he r ef or e ma y not f i nd i t an enhanci n g ef f ect f or sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng ( Ca wl ey, K eepi n g &
Le vy, 1 998) .
As su ggest ed , t as k co mpl exi t y and si t uat i on al const r ai nt s do ha ve a ne gat i ve ef f ect on sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng. Al t hou gh t he r esul t s wer e not si gni f i cant ,
pr evi ous t heor y di d s h ow a si gni f i cant r el at i on ( Bi pp & K l ei n gel d, 2011) . An expl anat i on mi ght be t hat t hese f act or s do i n f l uence sat i sf act i on as a whol e and not speci f i cal l y sat i sf a ct i on wi t h goal set t i n g ( Loc ke and Lat ha m, 1 990b) . Mor eover , i t ma y be t he case t hat t as k co mp l exi t y i s r el at ed t o t he a mount of “st r et ch” a mana ger b ui l ds i n dur i n g goal se t t i ng. As st at ed b y Do nl on ( 2008) , t he t ask has t o be of such a co mpl exi t y t hat i t dr i ves t he e mpl o yee t o a cer t ai n l evel of a mbi t i on wi t hout enha nci ng unet hi cal beha vi or . It mi ght be t he cas e t hat i n t he or gani zat i on of t hi s r e sear ch, t he st r et ch i s b ui l d i n i n such a wa y t hat e mpl o yees don’ t see t he ne gat i ve ef f ect of t he co mpl exi t y beca use a mana ger suf f i ci ent l y pr ovi des t he kno wl ed ge and supp or t t o meet t hi s co mpl ex “st r et ch” goal ( Sei j t s & Lat ha m, 2005) . Mana ger s shoul d t her ef or e, i n or der t o keep e mpl o yees s at i sf i ed wi t h goal set t i n g, ma ke sur e t hat co mpl exi t y of goal s i s l o w. When i t never t hel ess beco mes a co mpl ex st r et ch go al , ma na ger s s houl d pr o vi de t he kno wl ed ge
necessar y. Si t uat i onal const r ai nt s ar e not pr e sent and i t mi ght be t h e case t hat t hi s i nf l uences t he r esul t o f t hi s r esear ch.
Based on t he t heor y of Loc ke an d Lat ha m( 19 84) , se ver al co mponen t s of goal set t i n g wer e t est e d i n r el at i on t o sat i sf act i on wi t h t hi s goal se t t i ng. Cur r ent r esear ch i ndeed conf i r med t hat t hese f act or s have a si gni f i cant i nf l uence on t he l evel of sat i sf act i on w i t h goal set t i n g. In or d er t o cr eat e a new i nsi ght i n t he i mpor t ance of t hese f act or s, separ at e anal ysi s wer e per f or med whi c h showe d so me r eveal i n g f i ndi n gs . Al t hou gh i t was su ggest e d t hat pr o vi di n g su ppo r t and
T hi s vi ew c onf i r ms so me of t he c o mment s of t he par t i ci pant s. Al m ost al l of t he m ment i oned t hat t he con nect i on bet ween mana ger a nd e mpl o yee i s t h e most
i mpor t ant f act or of i nf l uence on t he l e vel of sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng. Li t er at ur e al so descr i bes t hi s i nf l uence b y m ent i oni ng t he Leader Me mber
exchan ge t heor y ( Gr ae n &Sca ndur a, 1987) . T hi s t heor y st at es t hat when t her e i s a go od r el at i on bet wee n t he mana ger a nd e mpl oyee , t he sup por t and f eedback of t he mana ger wi l l be of hi gher qual i t y ( Li nde, Sp ar r owe & Wa yne, 199 7) . E ven mor e, r esear ch poi nt ed out t hat sat i sf act i on wi t h p er f or ma nce appr ai sal i s al so hi gher when t he l eader - me mb er exchan ge i s p osi t i ve ( Russel l & Goo de, 1 988; Gi l es &
Mosshol der , 1990; J a wahar , 20 06) . Pr e vi ou s r esear ch woul d su ggest a mana ger t o
cl ar i f y goal s t o e mpl o yees i n or der t o cr eat e a hi gh l e vel of sat i sf a ct i on wi t h goal set t i ng. Rel at ed r esul t s howe ver , ha ve not b een f ound b y t he cur r e nt r esear ch. Mor eover , t he y poi nt t o t he opposi t e di r ect i o n. T he r el at i onshi p bet ween goal cl ar i t y and sat i sf act i o n wi t h goal set t i n g i s now t hou ght t o be si gni f i cant l y
negat i ve. T hi s woul d i mpl i ci t l y st at e t hat wh en goal s beco me cl ear er , sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i n g woul d decr ease. S uppor t f o r t hi s r esul t i s not cl ear l y f oun d i n l i t er at ur e. Howe ver , B i pp and K l ei n gel d ( 20 10) al so f ound a r el at i ve s mal l ef f ect ( b= 0.03, p = n .s.) of goal cl ar i t y o n j ob sat i sf act i on so i t mi ght be t he case t hat i ndeed cl ar i t y of goal s al one does n ot ha ve a hi gh ef f ect on sat i sf a ct i on. It mi ght be t he case t hat goal c l ar i t y i s onl y posi t i vel y r el at ed t o j ob sat i sf act i on, not so much t o s at i sf act i on w i t h goal s. For t he f i r st , Saw yer ( 1 992) f oun d a mpl e
evi dence . T he l at t er w as not exa mened t hor o ughl y. Re sul t s f ur t her mor e r e veal ed t he f ol l owi n g. As was suggest ed b y h ypot hes i s 15 or gani zat i onal f a ci l i t at i on i ndeed has a posi t i ve e f f ect on sat i sf act i on w i t h goal set t i n g. It t her ef or e can be concl uded t hat mana ge r s shoul d ma ke sur e t h at t he or gani zat i on f ac i l i t at es i n al l r esour ces needed f or g oal set t i ng t o wor k po si t i vel y. When doi n g s o,
seen t hat none of t he m i s si gni f i cant . E ven m or e st r i ki n g, t he r el at i onshi p wi t h goal st r ess a nd sat i sf a ct i on wi t h goal set t i n g i s posi t i ve . An expl an at i on f or t hi s non -si gni f i cant r ever s e ef f ect can be t hat go al s ar e not chal l en gi n g and t her e ar e not man y pr esent ( Lat ha m and Loc ke ,2006) . Mor eover , i t see ms t he case t hat e mpl o yees r ecei ved en ou gh and suf f i ci ent t r ai ni ng r e gar di n g t hei r goal s ( Lat ha m and Loc ke ,2006) , so met hi ng whi ch wi l l decr ease t he l e vel of st r ess . When we l oo k at t he r el at i onshi p bet ween r ewar ds , per f or m ance appr ai sal and sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i n g, si gni f i cant r el at i onshi ps can no t be f ound ei t her . T hi s wi l l i mpl i ci t l y l ead t o t he assu mpt i on t hat r ewar ds and appr ai sal do not ha ve an ef f ect on
sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng. Ho we ver , dur i ng t he open quest i ons cer t ai n
pr obl e ms wi t h t he s yst e m of r e war di n g and t hei r r el at i on t o goal s wer e me nt i oned. Especi al l y t he r el at i on bet ween t he a mo unt o f ef f or t r egar di n g t he goal a nd t he f i nanci al r ewar d. Cr o p anzan o, B yr ne, Boboc el and Ru pp ( 2001) me nt i oned i ndeed t hat when per cept i ons of e mpl o yees about t hi s r el at i on ar e ne gat i ve , co mmi t ment and mot i vat i on i n t he f ut ur e wi l l dr op. So w hen a mana ger does no t t ake t hi s l i n k bet ween appr ai sal an d goal s i nt o account , pr obl e ms can occur .
St rengt hs a nd Li m i t at i ons
As t hi s r esear ch di d n ot pr o vi de a l ot of si gni f i cant r esul t s, l i mi t a t i ons do ha ve t o be t ake n ser i ousl y. Fi r st l y, t he sa mpl e si ze o f t he r esear ch mi ght n ot be hi gh enou gh. Al t hou gh t he par t i ci pant s di d pr o vi d e t he or gani zat i on of t hi s r esear ch wi t h a l ot of r el e vant i nf or mat i on on how t o chan ge t he pr ocess of goal set t i n g, t hi s i nf or mat i on was q ui t e speci f i c f or t he or gani zat i on of t hi s r ese ar ch. It i s t her ef or e t hat mor e r e sear ch i s needed t o cr eat e gener al i zabi l i t y. A not her
l i mi t at i on i s t hat , a cco r di ng t o t he quest i onn ai r e, par t i ci pant s wer e t hou ght t o be r el at i ve unsat i sf i ed wi t h goal set t i ng. H owe ver , when t he y had t o r at e t hei r sat i sf act i on l evel wi t h goal set t i ng, i t was al wa ys code d abo ve t hr ee. In or der t o cont r ol f or t hi s, par t i ci pant s wer e as ked t o gi ve a f i nal gr ade. E ven her e,
or gani zat i ons. Fur t her mor e, i t can be t he cas e t hat , due t o t he sel ec t i on of
par t i ci pant s by t he H R mana ger , t he sa mpl e was not as r ando m as t hou ght . It mi ght be bi ased b y t he i nt er p r et at i on of t he Hr man ager . Anot her f act or t hat can ha ve a n i nf l uence on t he r esea r ch was t he quest i onna i r e. Or i gi nal l y, t he qu est i onnai r e was devel o ped b y Lee et al . ( 1991) . Ho we ver , d ur i ng t he cur r ent r esear c h, quest i ons wer e adj ust ed t o sui t a st r uct ur ed i nt er vi e w. Al t hou gh par t i ci pant s st i l l had t o gi ve a scor e r an gi n g f r o m 1 ( st r ongl y di sa gr ee) -5 ( st r ongl e a gr ee) , t he qu est i ons wer e not as ked i n t he sa me wa y as was t hou ght b y Lee et al . ( 19 91) . Wh er e t hei r
quest i on was “ M y bos s l et s me par t i ci pat e i n t he set t i ng of my go al s”, dur i n g t he cur r ent i nt er vi ew t he quest i on was “ Does yo ur super vi sor l et you p ar t i ci pat e i n set t i ng t he goal s?”. T h e sa me pr oce dur e w as appl i ed t o al l t he ques t i ons. Al t hou gh t he quest i ons wer e adj ust ed consequent l y, i n t hi s r esear ch t he ques t i onnai r e of Lee et al .( 1991) di d n ot ha ve as hi gh a Cr onbac h ’ s al pha f or t he di f f er e nt const r uct s as hoped f or . T hi s can be a si gn f or l o wer val i d i t y. T hi s l i mi t at i on ca n al so be
conf i r med b y t he f act t hat open quest i ons we r e mor e speci f i c. Anot her r eason was pr ovi de d b y Ni chol s ( 1999) w ho st at ed t hat t hi s l ow and s o met i me s ne gat i ve Cr onbach’ s al pha can be a r esul t of t he so me t i mes s mal l sa mpl e si ze and s mal l nu mber of i t e ms r el at e d t o t he const r uct . He al so st at es t hat i n t he t r ue popul at i on, t he co var i ance wi l l be posi t i ve an d t hat dur i n g r esear ch t he l ow and ne gat i ve al pha i s due t he sa mpl i n g er r or . Al t hou gh t hi s r ese ar ch does ha ve so me l i mi t at i ons, i t can al so cont r i but e t o t he pr act i cal and t heor et i cal l evel . At a pr act i cal l evel , t hi s r esear ch shows t hat i t i s i ndeed i mpor t ant f o r a mana ger t o keep ce r t ai n t hi ngs i n mi nd whi l e ma ki n g t ar get s. Especi al l y keepi ng i n mi n d t he abi l i t y of an e mpl o yee whi l e set t i ng goal s wi l l i ncr ease t he l evel of sat i sf act i on wi t h goal set t i ng.
Mor eover , i t i s ver y i mpor t ant f or a mana ge r t o cr eat e an en vi r on ment i n whi ch goal at t ai n ment i s f aci l i t at ed and i n whi ch pl ans and de vel o p ment o f an e mpl o yee ar e st i mul at ed. If a ma nager suf f i ci ent l y ap pl i es t hi s, sat i sf act i on w i t h goal set t i n g wi l l cer t ai nl y be enha nced. When we l oo k at t he t heor et i cal l evel , cur r ent r esear ch has a si gni f i cant cont r i but i on t o t he t heor y o n t he i nf l uence of goal set t i ng
F ut ure research
Because of t he f act t hat l eader -me mber r el at i onshi p was poi nt ed o ut t o be of gr eat i mpor t ance f or t he sat i sf act i on l evel wi t h go al set t i ng, f ut ur e r esear ch shoul d f ocus on t hi s r el at i ons hi p. When t hi s r el at i o nshi p i s posi t i ve, peo p l e ar e t hou ght t o be mor e sat i sf i ed wi t h goal set t i ng. Anot her co mpone nt t hat shoul d be el abor at ed on dur i n g f ut ur e r esea r ch i s t he t ype of l ead er shi pst yl e a mana ger has.
REF ER EN CE S
Ac kma n, D. ( 200 2, Ma r ch 22) . Pa y ma dness at Enr on. For bes.co m. Ret r i eved Dece mber 16, 2008, f r o m ht t p: / / w ww .f or bes .co m/ 200 2/ 03/ 22/ 0322 enr onpa y.ht ml Anseel , F ., Li e vens, F. & L e vy, P.E ., 20 07. A sel f -mot i ves per spe ct i ve on
f eedback see ki n g beha vi or : Li n ki n g or gani za t i onal beha vi or and so ci al psych ol o gy r esear ch. Int ernat i ona l Journal of Managem ent Revi ews, 9: 211 -2 36.
Bur eau Duodeci m, 20 1 0. Pop ul ar i t ei t si ndex Spor t 2010 .
ht t p: / / www.d uodeci m. nl / upl oad/ f i l e/ POPUL AR IT E IT S IN DEX % 20 SPO RT % 202010. pdf .
Bar on, A. & Ar mst r on g, M., 2 004. Get i nt o l i ne. Peopl e Ma nagem ent , 10( 20) : 44 -46.
Bandur a, A., 1986. Soc i al Foundat i ons of t h o ught and act i on: A soc i al cogni t i ve t heor y. En gl e wood Cl i f f s, NJ : Pr ent i ce Hal l .
Bandur a, A. & Cer von e, D. , 198 3. Sel f -e val u at i ve and sel f -ef f i cac y mechani s ms go ver ni n g t he mot i vat i onal ef f ect s of goal s yst ems . Jo urnal of Per sonal i t y and
Soci al Psychol o gy, 45 : 1017 -1028 .
Ba zer man, M. H., & C hu gh, D., 2006. Deci si ons wi t hout bl i nder s . H arvard
Busi ness Revi ew, 84( 1 ) : 88–97.
Bec ker , B.E. & Husel i d, M.A ., 19 98. Hi gh p er f or ma nce w or k s yst e ms and f i r m per f or mance; A s ynt he si s of r esear ch and ma nager i al i mpl i cat i ons. Research i n
Personnel a nd H um an Resources Managem ent , 16: 53 -1 01.
Bi pp, T . & K l ei ngel d , A., 2 011. Goal set t i n g i n Pr act i ce: T he ef f ect s of per sonal i t y a md per cept i ons of t he goal -set t i n g pr ocess o n j ob sat i sf act i on and goal
co mmi t ment . Personn el Revi euw, 40( 3) : 30 6 -32 3.
Br yan, W. L. & L oc ke, E. 19 67a. Goal set t i n g as a means of i ncr ea si ng mot i vat i on.
Journal of Appl i ed Ps ychol ogy, 5 1: 274 -277 .
Br yan, W. L. & L oc ke, E. 19 67b. Par ki nson’ s l aw as a goal -set t i n g pheno me non.
Organi zat i onal Beh av i or and H um an Perf or m ance, 2: 258 -2 75.
Br yan, W. L. & Har t er , N. , 1987 . St udi es i n t he ph ysi ol o gy and ps ychol o gy of t he t el egr aphi c l an gua ge. Psychol o gi cal Re vi e w, 41( 1) : 27 -53.
Ca mpb el l , D. & Gi n gr i ch, K .E., 1986 . T he i n t er act i ve ef f ect s of t as k c o mpl exi t y and par t i ci pat i on on t a sk per f or mance: a f i el d exper i ment . Org ani z at i onal
