The Goal Setting Theory PDF

Preview

Summary

Download The Goal Setting Theory PDF

Description

Motivation – The Goal Setting Theory The Goal Setting theory was developed by two researchers; Edwin Locke and Gary Latham, in the late 1960s, highlighting the relationship between goal setting and performance. Through their work, they found that people will respond to meet the goals set by others and, when presented with difficult but attainable targets, participants performed much better than those with less challenging ones. Moreover, it was found that those that were given specific goals and/or provided with productive feedback used this as a positive source of motivation which, in turn, improved their performance in the workplace [1] (C. Lunenburg, 2011). However, there are instances in which goal setting has been detrimental to the productivity of a worker. For example, by providing ambitious goals, employees may feel demotivated if they believe they cannot reach them, so less effort is put into completing the job than usual. Similarly, different tasks (i.e. simple or complex) require different types of goals (i.e. specific or difficult) to maximise performance. In this sense, it is important for managers to understand the difference from when goal setting is motivating and when it becomes harmful to a worker’s productivity in order to effectively implement the theory. The first paper, “Goal Setting Effects on Implicit and Explicit Learning of Complex Tasks” [2] (P. DeShon & A. Alexander, 1996), carried out two studies looking at the relationship between the effectiveness of goal setting on two different types of learning – implicit and explicit. Implicit learning is where individuals learn tasks through repeated exposure to a problem without any conscious effort to do so, whereas explicit learning is an active process, using cognitive resources to seek structure and formulate strategies to solve a problem. In this paper, Study 1 focused on the implications of setting specific goals for implicitly learned tasks, whereas Study 2 focused on explicit learning and how different goals affected motivation and performance. As a basis, the article described both studies as a replication of the Earley et al. (1989a) experiment. In this paper around 120 Psychology students were asked to “repeatedly predict the criterion value (Y) given the values of two related variables (X and Z)” [2] (P. DeShon & A. Alexander, 1996). They were then split into three groups with one of three goal conditions, predict the value of Y within; 8 points, 12 points or “do your best”. However, between each study, factors like time constraints and the number of repeats were changed (Study 2 included fewer repeats and longer time to solve the problem) to ensure that the desired dominant learning pattern was used. Similar to the findings of other research, Study 1 showed that goal setting was not effective at improving performance levels on implicitly learned tasks and could ultimately inhibit performance. This is because, by setting specific goals, candidates were encouraged to adopt explicit learning behaviours using extra cognitive resources which meant that these participants were not entirely focused on solving the problem because their thinking processes were being slowed down. Likewise,

Kaythi Aung 4287605 Introduction to Management

the results of Study 2 supported its own hypothesis, proving that setting specific goals on explicit tasks resulted in slow but gradual increases in performance as the exercise is repeated. The reason for this is that the goals set influenced participants to utilise more cognitive resources, encouraging them to formulate creative strategies and solutions to the problem. By doing so students were more focused and, as the experiment went on, they became more familiar with the task resulting in gradual increases in performance. The second paper, “Goal-Setting Paradoxes? Trade-Offs Between Working Hard and Working Smart: The United States (US) Versus China” [3] (Fang, W. Palmatier & R. Evans, 2004), focused more specifically on the sales industry and also looked at how different attitudes to work between cultures can affect what type of goal should be set. It concentrated on the influence of goal setting on three branches of sales behaviours; selling effort, adaptive selling and sales planning, and the trade-offs that may occur when workers are asked to reach a target. The experiment included a questionnaire sent to 600 US sales managers and 30 Chinese sales companies, both varying in a range of sales products, with the total usable response rate for the US and China being 23.1% and 50% respectfully. Questions were close-ended with seven choices from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” and the responses were then grouped and scaled to provide relationships between goal difficulty and specificity on the three types of sales behaviours. In the end, the study established three distinct relationships. Firstly, it found that, for both the US and China, sales planning has a positive correlation with both goal specificity and difficulty. This pattern is explained by the fact that, when given specific and/or challenging goals, individuals are encouraged to strictly focus on developing solutions to the task by planning and tailoring their work solely towards achieving their target. Although this may not adhere to the theory that setting goals leaves less cognitive resources for formulating the creative solutions and strategies needed for sales planning, the paper suggests that this is offset by the motivational effects that setting goals provides

[3]

(Fang, W. Palmatier & R. Evans, 2004). And, despite losing some cognitive resources to increased self-evaluation, there are still enough resources left for the sales person to use towards strategizing and sales planning. In contrast, the second relationship illustrated the negative impact that goal specificity and difficulty has on adaptive selling. By setting specific and/or challenging goals, workers are less likely to engage in adaptive selling as they feel they do not have the freedom to explore other options when they face tight boundaries and deadlines. When people feel as though they are restricted by having to meet specific/difficult goals, they become less focused on adapting and changing their techniques but rather on trying to close the sale to meet their targets. Finally, the results also demonstrated the effects that setting goals may have on different cultures. For example, in Chinese culture, it is widely believed that difficult goals can be met by simply trying harder, therefore the results showed a positive relationship between goal difficulty and

Kaythi Aung 4287605 Introduction to Management

sales effort. Conversely, those in the US found that being set more challenging goals or relatively easy goals both demotivating as they seem either unattainable or do not feel the need to work hard to achieve them. Various implications of the goal setting theory can be drawn from both studies. Both papers imply that this theory can be effective in motivating a workforce, but only when done properly. For a company that requires large amounts of innovation and creativity to improve or design new products, the findings of the first article suggest that setting specific and challenging goals is useful to motivate individuals to improve performance as they explicitly solve these complex tasks. Also, creativity can be enhanced by giving employees distinct targets as it pushes them to focus on that area of work and allocate all their time and resources towards achieving that goal [4] (M. Amabile, 1998). However, it must be kept in mind that improvements in performance will only be seen when employees are repeating the complex task over a long period otherwise, they won’t have time to get familiar with the task and make gradual improvements in performance. Furthermore, the paper also highlighted how important it is for managers running international businesses to have a good understanding of the cultural context before using the theory. These findings are particularly relevant to contemporary organisations where managers are usually overseeing companies across different countries rather than in one place. As shown by the second study, employees from a background with high work ethic are more motivated under conditions with quite difficult but less specific goals as this motivates them to work their hardest while giving them the freedom to explore different approaches to their work. Conversely, in cultures where work ethic is not as strong, managers must ensure they set goals to the right level of difficulty to ensure workers do not feel demotivated by them being too easy or too hard. Overall, the research suggests that the goal setting theory is effective when managers take a contingent approach to setting goals. As the first article suggests, even with complex tasks, managers should try to determine what they expect from their employees before they set any goals that may offset the dominant learning process they want to achieve. Similarly, the second research paper implies that, in some industries, setting goals can cause trade-offs between behaviours so managers must, again, be aware of what they expect from their workers. But the most important implication is that goals should be tailored to the needs of each individual, determined by a variety of factors such as; the task, their strengths/weaknesses and culture/attitudes to work. Ultimately, this theory is a very powerful mechanism to instil motivation into a team of workers but must be done carefully and appropriately to make sure that managers are utilising the potential of their entire workforce.

Kaythi Aung 4287605 Introduction to Management

References 1. C Lunenburg, F. (2011). Goal-Setting Theory of Motivation. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration, 15(1), Abstract. 2. P. DeShon, R & A Alexander, R. (1996). Goal Setting Effects on Implicit and Explicit Learning of Complex Tasks. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 65(1), 18-36. 3. Fang, E, W. Palmatier, R & R. Evans, K. (2004). Goal-Setting Paradoxes? Trade-Offs Between Working Hard and Working Smart: The United States Versus China. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(2), 188-202. 4. M. Amabile, T. (1998). How to Kill Creativity. Harvard Business Review, -(-), 81-82. 5. Earley, P. C., Connolly, T., & Ekegren, G., (1989a). Goals, strategy development, and task performance: Some limits on the efficacy of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 24–33. 6. D. Ordóñez et al.. (Working Paper). Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of OverPrescribing Goal Setting. Harvard Business Review, -(-), . 7. A. Locke, E & P. Latham, G. (2006). New Directions in Goal-Setting Theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265-268.

Kaythi Aung 4287605 Introduction to Management...