Goal Setting by Groups Performing an Additive Task: A Comparison With Individual Goal Setting1

This article compares goal levels and task performance of groups and individuals that are assigned or self-set goals. Groups performed an additive task that allowed for direct comparison with individuals' i]ndependent performance of the task. Consistent with predictions, groups and individuals selected goals that were less difficult than assigned goals which required only a modest increase in performance. Group members and individuals who were assigned goals attained higher levels of performance than self-set or no goal condition subjects. The prediction that group members and individuals who self-set their goals would have more positive affective reactions to the goal-setting situation than participants in assigned condition was supported. The results of this study are consistent with the existing literature on groups and individuals regarding effects of goals, performance, and affective reactions. Analyses also indicate that the group goal decision process involves a compensatory strategy in which an average of group member preferences for the goal was used to reach a group goal decision. Discussion focuses on the similarities and differences between the findings of self-set and assigned goal-setting situations for groups and individuals, with particular reference to goal choice strategies, goal expectancies, and efficacy.     

Type A behavior pattern and goal setting under different conditions of choice

This study examined the effects of the Type A behavior pattern on performance, goal acceptance, goal commitment, and expectancy of success under goal-setting conditions. Participants were assigned to one of four groups, assigned goal/assigned strategy, assigned goal/self-set strategy, self-set goal/assigned strategy, or self-set goal/self-set strategy. Results suggested that Type A persons were more likely to accept a difficult goal and remain committed to that goal, and that they had a higher expectancy of success than their Type B counterparts regardless of goal/strategy condition. With respect to performance, participants in the assigned goal/assigned strategy condition outperformed all other groups. A three-way interaction indicated that Type A persons performed better in the self-set goal/self-set strategy than Type B individuals. Implications of the findings regarding Type A and goal setting are discussed.     

Effects of goal difficulty, self-set goals, and monetary rewards on dual task performance

The present study tests the effects of goal difficulty, goal origin (self-set vs assigned), and monetary rewards (present vs absent) on the simultaneous performance of two tasks (dual-task paradigm). Participants were 32 students working simultaneously on a computerized task of letter typing with the right hand and digit classification with the left hand. A 2 (self-set vs assigned goals) × 2 (present vs absent contingent monetary rewards) × 3 (easy, moderate, and difficult goals) factorial design with goal difficulty as the repeated factor was employed. Each task element was performed under easy, moderate, and difficult goals, which appeared in six consecutive trials of varied order within each experimental condition. Results indicate that self-set goals without monetary rewards led to the highest performance levels, whereas the combination of self-set goals and monetary rewards was detrimental to performance. These findings occurred (except in one case) only when goals were of either moderate Or high difficulty.     

THE EFFECTS OF SELF-SET, PARTICIPATIVELY SET AND ASSIGNED GOALS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

A government agency wished to define effective supervisory behavior. Fifty-seven government employees participated in the job analysis. The employees were randomly assigned to one of three goal setting conditions, namely, self-set, participatively set, and assigned goals. The task required each individual to brainstorm individually job behaviors that he or she had seen make the difference between effective and ineffective job behavior as a supervisor. Goals were set in terms of the number of behaviors to be listed within 20 minutes. There was no significant difference in goal difficulty between those with participatively set goals and those with self-set goals. Goal difficulty was held constant between the participative and assigned goal conditions by imposing a goal agreed upon by an employee in the participative condition upon an employee in the assigned condition. There was no significant difference among the three goal setting conditions regarding goal acceptance or actual performance. This was true regardless of employee age, education, position level, years as a supervisor, or time employed in the public sector. The correlation between goal difficulty and performance was .62, .69, and .74, respectively, in the participative, self-set, and assigned goal conditions.     

Using Judgmental Anchors to Establish Challenging Self-Set Goals Without Jeopardizing Commitment

We applied the decision-making literature on judgmental anchors to develop a strategy for establishing challenging self-set goals. In experiments involving the generation of uses for common objects, we demonstrated that introducing an arbitrary and unreasonably high anchor significantly increased the value selected as a self-set goal. Self-efficacy and task performance also increased subsequent to the introduction of a high anchor. These results of anchoring goals occurred without reducing the goal commitment that is associated with self-set goals. Moreover, when anchored self-set goals were compared to assigned goals, they were found to have similar levels of performance and greater goal commitment. Discussion focused on the implications of anchoring goals for the processes and outcomes related to assigned and self-set goal-setting situations.     

Processes That Mediate the Relationship Between a Group Goal and Group Member Performance

The impact of a group goal on the performance of anonymous and nonin- teracting group members performing an additive group task was tested. Pro- cesses believed to mediate the effect, the role of self-set individual goals, the impact of information about the group's previous performance on the task (group knowledge of results; GRPKR) on goal commitment, and the motiva- tional basis of the goal were also assessed. Seventeen groups of three to five people performed two trials of an idea generation task. In the GOAL/GRPKR condition, group members were assigned a group goal for Session 2 and received information about the group's performance for Session 1. In the goal without knowledge of results (GOAL/NOKR) condition, group mem- bers were assigned a group goal for Session 2 without GRPKR. In the NO- GOAL condition, group members worked without a goal and without GRPKR. In each condition, group members worked on the task without talk- ing to other group members and individual contributions to the group prod- uct were unknown to others. Self-reports of effort, changes in individual performance strategies from Rial 1 to Rial 2, self-set individual goals, goal commitment, and personal challenge were collected. Results showed that (a) group members working toward a performance goal outperformed those working without a goal, b) information about the group's previous perfor- mance on the task did not influence commitment to the goal or performance, (c) changes in individual performance strategies mediated the group goal ef- fect but self-reports of effort invested in the task did not, (d) g m ~ p members working toward a group goal felt more personal challenge than group mem- bers working without a goal, and (e) self-set individual goals can not account for the group goal effect. The implications of these results for models of group goals and group performance are discussed.     

The Effects of Varying Goal Difficulty Operationalizations on Goal Setting Outcomes and Processes

The three studies reported here investigated the effect of operationalization of goal difficulty on the relationship between goal difficulty and performance. Subjects were assigned goals (easy, moderately difficult, or very difficult) under either an absolute goal level or performance improvement condition. Results indicated that the goal difficulty interacted with operationalization in affecting performance. Specifically, there was a linear relationship between goal difficulty and performance when goals were operationalized in terms of absolute level, but an inverted U-relationship between these two variables when goals were operationalized in terms of performance improvement. This interaction held up despite controlling for normative goal difficulty, performance improvement difficulty and absolute goal level difficulty. The effects of operationalization seemed to be attributable to differences in self-set goal levels, particularly among high ability persons. Taken as a whole, these studies indicate that how assigned goals are derived and how they are communicated to subjects affects goal setting outcomes.     

Goal orientation, task difficulty, and task interest: A multilevel analysis

We studied whether goal orientation affects the relationships that task difficulty and interest have with self-set goals. Using a sample of 499 undergraduate students who listed grade goals for their classes, we employed Hierarchical Linear Modeling to explain differences in the extent to which difficulty and interest related to goals. Higher goals were set for more interesting and easier classes, and for individuals higher in mastery goal orientation and for those lower in performance-avoidance orientation (at average levels of interest and difficulty). Furthermore, performance-approach and performance-avoidance orientations reduced and strengthened (respectively) the effects of task difficulty on self-set goals, and the buffering effect of mastery orientation was marginally significant. Portions of this paper were presented at the 19^th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL, in April 2004.     

The Effect of Commitment to a Learning Goal,Self-Efficacy,and the Interaction Between Learning Goal Difficulty and Commitment on Performance in a Business Simulation

The effect of commitment to a learning goal, self-efficacy, and the interaction between learning goal difficulty and goal commitment with performance was investigated using a highly complex business simulation. Participants (n?=?128) needed to acquire knowledge in order to perform the task effectively. The correlation between commitment to the learning goal and performance was positive and significant (r = .47, p < .001). Commitment was also a moderator of the learning goal–task performance effect. The relationship between self-efficacy and performance was partially mediated by commitment to the learning goal. Performance was a partial mediator of the relationship between goal commitment and self-efficacy. Seventy-five percent of the participants self-set a performance goal. The correlation between self-set performance goals and performance was positive and significant (r = .31, p < .001).     

Mediating Roles of Self-Set Goals,Goal Commitment,Self-Efficacy,and Attractiveness in the Incentive-Performance Relation

The effects of monetary incentives on performance were examined in 2 studies. These effects were hypothesized to be through the intermediary motivational processes of self-efficacy, attractiveness ratings, goal level, and goal commitment. In Study 1, 80 subjects worked solving anagrams on 8 trials under 1 of 4 monetary incentive conditions (piece rate, hourly rate, competitive bonus, and goal attainment bonus). In Study 2, 146 subjects worked solving anagrams on 4 trials under 1 of 4 monetary incentive conditions (piece rate, informed bonus, uninformed bonus, and assigned bonus). In both studies, subjects self-set goal levels both before and after the incen- tive manipulation. Results from both studies indicated that tying rewards to goal attainment resulted in subjects having lower goal levels and lower self-efficacy, whereas piece-rate systems resulted in higher goal levels and higher self-efficacy. In addition, goal levels and self-efficacy partially mediated the relation between incentives and performance.     

The effects of individual differences and goal origin on goal setting and performance

The purpose of this study is to clarify the roles played by individual differences and goal origin in the goal setting process. In order to accomplish this objective this study (a) briefly reviews the existing empirical evidence on individual differences in the goal setting literature, (b) develops a model of the goal-setting process that specifies different roles for individual differences depending upon goal origin, and (c) tests hypotheses generated by this model in a laboratory setting. The results indicate that under self-set conditions variables associated with self-perceptions of task-specific ability, but not generalized self-esteem, are related to the difficulty of the goals selected, with more difficult goals being set by individuals high in task-specific ability perceptions. Furthermore, when goals are self-set, regardless of individual differences, the expectancy and valence of goal attainment tends to be high and invariant relative to assigned conditions (i.e., the motivation to pursue the goal is high), and a strong goal difficulty-performance relationship is in evidence for all subjects. Under assigned goal conditions, individual differences determine the reaction to the assigned goal. Individuals high in task-specific self-esteem have stronger expectancies for attaining the goal relative to those low in this trait; and, individuals high in generalized self-esteem exhibit higher valence for goal attainment than those low in generalized self-esteem. In assigned conditions, there was a positive goal difficulty-performance relationship only for individuals high in generalized self-esteem. Some evidence actually suggested that for subjects low in generalized self-esteem, it is better to assign low goals. Low goals seem to increase the self-perceived task-specific ability of these subjects which relates positively with performance.     

Toward an Integration of Goal Setting Theory and the Automaticity Model

Two laboratory experiments were conducted to assess the extent to which goal setting theory explains the effects of goals that are primed in the subconscious on task performance. The first experiment examined the effect on performance of three primes that connote the difficulty levels of a goal in the subconscious. Participants (n = 91) were randomly assigned to one of three conditions where they were primed with either a photograph of a person lifting 20 pounds (easy goal), 200 pounds (moderately difficult goal), or 400 pounds (difficult goal). Following a filler task, participants were asked to “press as hard as you can” on a digital weight scale. Participants who were primed with the difficult goal exerted more effort than those who were primed with the moderate or easy goal. The second experiment examined whether choice of goal difficulty level can be primed. Participants (n = 133) were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. Those primed with a difficult goal consciously chose to set a more difficult goal on a brainstorming task than those who were primed with an easier goal. Similarly, their performance was significantly higher. Conscientiousness moderated the subconscious goal–performance relationship while the self‐set conscious goal partially mediated the subconscious goal–performance relationship.     

The Effect of a Context-Specific Primed Goal on Goal Commitment and Team Performance

The effect of a context-specific prime for cooperation on goal commitment and team performance were examined. In the first experiment, the participants (n = 139) performed the Lost on the Moon simulation (Hall & Watson, 1970) individually and as a team (n = 50). The teams were randomly assigned to a condition where they were assigned the same goal. They were then primed (n = 23) through a photograph of cooperation or to the control condition (n = 27). Consistent with NASA’s directions for performing the simulation, performance was measured by how well a team performed relative to the answers of experts, namely, staff at NASA. The results showed that a primed behavioural goal to cooperate has a positive effect on team performance. These results were replicated in a second and third experiment involving a social dilemma where both a pro-social, group-centric goal and a pro-self, egocentric goal could be self-set for the amount of points to make. Thus the positive effect of a goal primed for cooperation on a team’s performance was shown to be robust even when there was an explicit mixture of cooperative and competitive incentives. This finding was replicated in a third experiment with actual money. Consistent with goal setting theory, commitment to the team’s goal moderated the primed goal-performance relationship.     

Impact of Goal and Resource Interdependence on Problem-Solving Success

Abstract

Despite the considerable evidence that cooperation promotes higher individual achievement and greater group productivity than do competitive or individualistic situations, there are conditions under which the opposite may be true. The relative impact of positive goal interdependence and positive resource interdependence on individual achievement and group productivity in a computer-assisted problem-solving task was investigated. Forty-four Black American high school seniors and college freshmen, stratified for ability, sex, and urban or rural background, were randomly assigned to conditions. Positive goal interdependence promoted higher individual achievement and group productivity than did no goal interdependence. The combination of positive goal and resource interdependence promoted higher individual achievement and group productivity than did any of the other conditions, indicating that two sources of positive interdependence are more powerful than one. When used in isolation from positive goal interdependence, positive resource interdependence produced the lowest individual achievement and problem-solving success.     

The Influence of Affect on Goal Choice and Task Performance

The present study investigated the influence of mood on self-set goals and task performance. Results from 2 studies suggest a restricted view of mood effects in which affective state influences the level of self-set goals or task performance, but not both. Study 2 reveals asymmetrical mood effects on task performance, with positive- and negative-mood participants exceeding the baseline performance of neutral mood participants. Evidence indicates that goal-setting instructions may alter how individuals interpret motivational implications of mood. Although theory implies an inclusive view in which mood has both direct and indirect (through goal-setting) performance effects, the conflicting influences of affect infusion at different points of the goal-striving process may diminish the likelihood of observing inclusive effects.     

Self-handicapping: The interplay between self-set and assigned achievement goals

This study examined the combined impact of self-set goals and manipulated goal contexts on self-handicapping to better understand how self-set goals affect responses to different performance-oriented achievement contexts. Participants reported their self-set goals and later completed an achievement task in a goal-context condition (performance-approach, performance-avoidance, no-goal). Before the task, participants had the opportunity to self-handicap (behaviorally and claimed). The results showed that self-set performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals positively predicted behavioral self-handicapping, but only in a performance-avoidance context. Additionally, self-set mastery-avoidance goals were found to predict claimed self-handicapping, regardless of the context condition. These results show that self-set achievement goals shape individuals behaviors associated with threat and promise in achievement situations.     

The Effects of Self-Set Goals on Task Performance

Locke & Latham (1990a) report that specific, difficult goals lead to better performance than "do-your-best" instructions, whether the goals are self-set or are set by an external source. However, in Experiment I, as well as in previous research (White, Kjelgaard, & Harkins, 1995), we did not find self-set goal effects. A meta-analysis showed that self-set goal effects can be produced if two conditions are met: Prior to setting their goals, participants take part in a pretest that is equal in duration to the experimental task; and the experimenter has access to the participants' goals and the performances. Experiment 2 confirmed these meta-analytic findings by showing that when these two conditions were met, goals stringent enough to produce the effects were set, and goal-setting effects were obtained.     

Examination of the Roles of Action-State Orientation and Goal Orientation in the Goal-Setting and Performance Process

This investigation examined the roles of action-state orientation and goal orientation in predicting task-specific motivation and performance in an academic context. Results showed that action-state orientation predicted performance independent of goal orientation, cognitive ability, self-efficacy and self-set goals. Goal orientation primarily related to self-efficacy beliefs, which predicted goals and performance. Although action-state orientation and goal orientation were correlated, they had independent relationships with task-specific goal-setting and performance variables.     

Goal Characteristics and Satisfaction: Personal Goals as Mediators of Situational Effects on Task Satisfaction1

This study modeled the process underlying the experience of satisfaction by examining the interrelationships among the task situation, intention characteristics, and satisfaction. The central proposition of the model was that the effect of the situation on satisfaction is fully mediated by the nature and status of one's own intentions that result from that context. The proposed model, in which the task situation indirectly determines satisfaction only through intention characteristics, was compared to a model in which the situation both directly and indirectly determines satisfaction and to a model which contained no intention characteristics. The intention characteristics assessed in this study included their number, valence, value, commitment, probability, and perceived attainment. Two aspects of the task situation were examined: task enrichment and assigned performance goals. A total of 192 subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 conditions according to goal (no goal vs. assigned goal) and task type (enriched vs. unenriched). Intentions and their characteristics were assessed before the task period, and satisfaction with the task was measured afterward. The results provided support for a model in which the task situation and intention characteristics have independent effects on satisfaction.     

Anchor effects in decision making can be reduced by the interaction between goal monitoring and the level of the decision maker’s executive functions

Models of decision making postulate that interactions between contextual conditions and characteristics of the decision maker determine decision-making performance. We tested this assumption by using a possible positive contextual influence (goals) and a possible negative contextual influence (anchor) in a risky decision-making task (Game of Dice Task, GDT). In this task, making advantageous choices is well known to be closely related to a specific decision maker variable: the individual level of executive functions. One hundred subjects played the GDT in one of four conditions: with self-set goal for final balance (n?=?25), with presentation of an anchor (a fictitious Top 10 list, showing high gains of other participants; n?=?25), with anchor and goal definition (n?=?25), and with neither anchor nor goal setting (n?=?25). Subjects in the conditions with anchor made more risky decisions irrespective of the negative feedback, but this anchor effect was influenced by goal monitoring and moderated by the level of the subjects' executive functions. The findings imply that impacts of situational influences on decision making as they frequently occur in real life depend upon the individual's cognitive abilities. Anchor effects can be overcome by subjects with good cognitive abilities.