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.     

Group and Individual Decision Making for Task Performance Goals: Processes in the Establishment of Goals:in Groups1

The study examines the processes by which goals in groups are established. Performance goals and preferences for goals were stated by individuals acting alone, by groups deciding in unison, and by group members. All subjects performed a card-sorting task as individuals, and self-set goals were selected for expected levels of individual performance. Groups selected goals that were less difficult than individual goals on several occasions of goal setting. Analysis of the group goal decisions suggests that a success-based social comparison process occurs that implies groups select a goal slightly lower than the average of the member preferences so that the group members may appear successful. Analyses also indicated that the lower group goals arose quickly in the group interaction, and that group members readily adopted the lower goals as appropriate levels of performance. Discussion focuses on the observed differences among group, group member, and individual performance goals, and the ability of the success-based social comparison process to account for these differences.     

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.     

Individual Versus Group Decision Making: Social Comparison in Goals for Individual Task Performance

This experiment compares the decisions of individuals and groups on goals for the performance expected from individuals on a problem-solving or an error-checking task. For both tasks, two versions were constructed to reflect low and high levels of task difficulty. Predictions from two different social comparison of abilities approaches were formulated, with the social comparison based on success approach predicting that group goals would be easier than individual goals, while social comparison based on performance predicted the opposite pattern. Consistent with the social comparison based on success predictions, group goals were observed to be significantly less difficult than individual goals for both tasks, both levels of task difficulty, and for both an initial and a second goal-setting occasion. Of particular interest was a finding that the easier group goals reflected group member preferences for easy goals in anticipation of group decision making. It is proposed that social factors such as evaluation apprehension and social comparison may be responsible for the differences observed in group and individual goal decisions, and that social factors may have an important role in a variety of goal-setting situations.     

Goal setting in teams: The impact of learning and performance goals on process and performance

This study examined the impact of three alternative types of goals (specific learning, general “do your best” learning, and specific performance) on team performance. Eighty-four-person teams engaged in an interdependent command and control simulation in which the team goal and task complexity were manipulated. Contrary to research at the individual level, teams with specific learning goals performed worse than did teams with general “do your best” learning goals or specific performance goals. The negative effects of specific learning goals relative to general “do your best” learning goals and specific performance goals were amplified under conditions of increased task complexity and were explained by the amount of coordination in the teams.     

Are we on a learning curve or a treadmill? The benefits of participative group goal setting become apparent as tasks become increasingly challenging over time

A large body of research has pointed to the utility of individual and group goal setting as a performance enhancement strategy. However, group goal setting is more complex than individual goal setting as the group context often strengthens the desire for voice and the possibility of resistance. In line with this idea, we test the prediction that goal‐related performance improvements should be more marked where groups participate in goal setting rather than having goals imposed—particularly as they become increasingly hard to achieve. These ideas are tested in two experiments (N_groups = 27, 72). Both confirm the capacity for group goal setting to enhance brainstorming performance. More importantly, both studies also show that the benefits of participative goals relative to imposed goals becomes more marked as goals become more difficult over time. In line with social identity and self‐categorization principles, we suggest that this is because increases in participatively set goals appear to provide opportunities for collective self‐actualization and self‐enhancement while increases in imposed goals do not. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Processes that mediate the relationship between a group goal and improved group performance

The relationships between the level of a group performance goal for quantity, group process, and group performance were assessed. Forty groups of 3 people performed 3 trials of a production task. One half of the groups were assigned a low goal for Sessions 2 and 3, and one half were assigned a high goal. To measure group process, videotapes of each group were analyzed and self-reports of behavior were collected. A significant difference in performance across the high and low goal conditions was found for Session 3, and measures of group process showed that effort, group planning, changes in individual and group performance plans, and reduced concern for quality mediated the group goal effect. These results are discussed in relation to Weldon and Weingart's (1988) model of group goals and group performance.     

Perception in consequences of free riding

This study examined the relationships between perceptions of group members' free riding and group outcomes using Mulvey and Klein's 1998 perceived free riding scale. In a laboratory study, three free riding conditions were created (no free riding, free riding, free riding with justification) in which 97 college students performed two short number-finding tasks as members of temporary ad hoc three-person groups. 55% of the students were male and the average age was 22.9 yr. (SD= 3.0). Participants' perceptions of free riding were negatively related to commitment to the assigned group goal, task performance, and goals for group performance and individual performance. In the condition wherein free riding was justified by low ability, participants set lower goals for their future task performance than did those in the other two conditions.     

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.     

Effects of Task Complexity and Goal Specificity on Change in Strategy and Performance Over Time

In this study we examined whether task complexity interacts with goal specific- ity over multiple performance periods. A 2 x 2 x 3 design manipulated goal condition (specific difficult vs. do-your-best) and task complexity (simple vs. complex) over performance on 3 separate days. Results across performance periods indicated that do-your-best goals led to higher quantity of performance than specific difficult goals on a complex task, whereas specific difficult goals led to higher quantity of performance than do-your-best goals on a simpler version of the task. Additionally, goal specificity and task complexity led to greater change in strategy over repeated performance periods, with those in the complex, specific difficult condition exhibiting the highest amount of change in strategy. Finally, there were no differences in quality of performance for indi- viduals working on simple versus complex tasks. Implications of these findings and directions for future research are discussed.     

Effects of group goal content on group processes,collective efficacy,and satisfaction

We examined the efficacy of groups possessing learning as opposed to performance goals on an interactive group task. As such, we predicted that the possession of learning goals focuses groups more on strategic processes than the possession of performance or do‐best goals. We further hypothesized that collective efficacy beliefs are most strongly correlated with performance for groups that possess performance goals because performance goals direct attention to task outcomes. Results indicated that groups assigned learning goals discussed more strategic information and reported greater satisfaction with performance. In addition, the relationship between task performance and collective efficacy was stronger for performance‐goal groups than learning‐goal groups. Overall, results suggested that causing groups to attend to processes required for effective group performance influences how groups regulate behavior and interpret feedback.     

Goal Setting Effects on Implicit and Explicit Learning of Complex Tasks

The robust finding that setting difficult, specific goals leads to increased performance on simple tasks has not generalized to complex task performance. The results of the present research suggest that the moderating effect of task complexity on the goal–performance relationship is due to confounding goal difficulty with explicit and implicit learning. Two multiple cue probability learning studies were performed keeping the learning mode constant while varying goal difficulty. Study 1 examined goal setting effects on performance when task processing was implicit. Consistent with previous research on complex tasks, setting difficult, specific goals did not result in performance gains. Study 2 demonstrated that when complex task processing is explicit, goal setting results in gradual but steady improvements in complex task performance. Protocol analysis of strategies used by participants indicate that goal setting resulted in increased performance through the development of better strategies.     

Goal regulation across time: the effects of feedback and affect

This research focused on the processes individuals use to regulate their goals across time. Two studies examined goal regulation following task performance with 6 samples of participants in a series of 8-trial task performance experiments. The experiments involved: (a) 3 task types, (b) 2 goal types, and (c) actual or manipulated performance feedback referring to the focal participant's own performance or to the participant's performance compared with others' performance. Applying multilevel methods, the authors examined (a) how performance feedback influences subsequent goals within individuals across both negative and positive performance feedback ranges, and (b) the mediating role of affect in explaining the relationship between feedback and subsequent goal setting. Results showed that participants adjusted their goals downwardly following negative feedback and created positive goal-performance discrepancies by raising their goals following positive feedback. In each sample, affect mediated substantial proportions of the feedback-goals relationship within individuals.     

Assessing the Burdens of Leadership: Effects of Formal Leadership Roles on Individual Performance Over Time

This study adopted a role-based perspective in examining whether changes in performance over time (i.e., dynamic criteria) were a function of changes in individual leadership role responsibilities. Longitudinal data from captains in the modern era of the National Hockey League ( N = 201) were used to test a dynamic criterion hypothesis using multilevel growth modeling. Time ( k = 10) was modeled as a random effect, whereas captain status (i.e., leadership role responsibility) was included as a time-varying covariate. Individual performance was measured as the adjusted points (goals scored plus assists adjusted for individual and historical effects). Results of a series of model building steps that included the examination of alternative complex error structures indicated an overall negative performance trend. Those seasons in which a player assumed formal leadership responsibilities (i.e., team captain) were associated with better performance compared to seasons in which the player had no leadership responsibilities. These results were found to be robust even after controlling for individual performance in the previous season. Results are discussed in terms of the possible positive implications for individual performance and the motivation to lead through developing a culture in which leadership positions are highly valued by the organization, visible to others on the team, and where leadership responsibilities do not interfere with task performance.     

An Examination of the Cognitive Mechanisms by Which Assigned Goals Affect Task Performance and Reactions to Performance1

In this study, cognitive mechanisms by which assigned goals affect task performance and reactions to performance were examined. Subjects working on a creativity task were assigned one of three performance goals varying in difficulty. Ratings of subjective probability of goal attainment, expected performance, expected satisfaction with goal attainment, and desired performance were obtained prior to each of five blocks of trials. Ratings of satisfaction with performance were obtained after each trial block and ratings of ability were obtained after all trials were completed. As predicted, with increased goal difficulty, subjective probability of goal attainment decreased, but expected performance, expected satisfaction with goal attainment, and desired performance increased. Contrary to prediction, the effect of goal difficulty on task performance was not significant. LISREL analyses revealed that goal difficulty exerted both positive (through expected and desired performance) and negative (through subjective probability of goal attainment) effects on performance. Goal difficulty had a negative effect on satisfaction with performance and ratings of perceived ability. The importance of identifying the cognitive mechanisms by which assigned goals affect performance and the need to consider consequences of assigned goals other than task performance are discussed.     

A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Situationally Induced Achievement Goals on Task Performance

The purpose of this research was to meta-analyze studies which experimentally induced an achievement goal state to examine its causal effect on the individual’s performance at the task at hand, and to investigate the moderator effects of feedback anticipation and time pressure. The data set comprised 19 papers, 79 individual effect sizes, and 3,482 participants. Performance measures represented task performance across a variety of tasks. The findings indicate that relative to avoidance goals (either performance-avoidance goals or mastery-avoidance goals), approach goals (either mastery-approach goals or performance-approach goals) enhance task performance. Furthermore, relative to performance-approach goals, mastery-approach goals lead to better performance, particularly when individuals do not anticipate feedback and when there is no time pressure. Implications and future directions for research are discussed.     

Social Comparison and Goal Setting in Brainstorming Groups1

Two studies were conducted to examine the influence of individual and group goal setting on brainstorming performance. Results from the studies indicated that the individual goals of nominal participants were higher than the individual goals of interactive participants. Group goal setting by consensus led to the lowest goals. There was no influence of goal setting on group brainstorming performance. However, participants who set goals rated their individual performance more favorably than did participants who did not set goals. The low group goals set by interactive groups are discussed in terms of assumptions made regarding the ability of other group members and the detrimental effects of group interaction.     

When opportunity knocks: bottom-up priming of goals by means and its effects on self-regulation

Four studies using general attribute goals or specific task goals revealed that attainment means cognitively activate the goals they are perceived to serve. A range of means replicated this effect including goal-directed activities, specific behavioral strategies, or opportunities, assumed to afford effective goal pursuit. The increased accessibility of a currently pursued goal due to "bottom-up" priming by its attainment means improved task persistence and performance, whereas a similarly increased accessibility of a competing goal impeded task persistence and performance.     

The Moderating Effects of Dispositional Affectivity on Performance and Task Attitudes in a Goal‐Setting Context1

This study examined the effects of goal difficulty, negative affectivity (NA), and positive affectivity (PA) on performance and task attitudes on a complex task. Research participants played an air traffic controller (ATC) simulation and were assigned either an easy or difficult goal at 2 different points in time: early during skill acquisition, and after several experimental trials. We hypothesized that the effect of difficult goals would vary depending on whether they were administered early and late during skill acquisition. We also hypothesized that NA and PA would moderate the effect of goal difficulty. Neither the early nor late goal assignments related to performance or task attitudes as hypothesized. Instead, PA and NA both moderated goal‐outcome relationships.     

An interactive approach to work motivation: The effects of competition,rewards, and goal difficulty on task performance

This study examined the interactive effects of competition, rewards, and goal difficulty on task performance and goal commitment. Students were assigned to one of eight experimental conditions and participated in a computerized anagram solution task. Rewards significantly increased performance, especially along with difficult goals. Competition was not found to have an effect on goal commitment or task performance, and goal difficulty increased performance although the results did not reach statistical significance. Goal commitment was shown to have a direct effect on task performance as opposed to a moderating role in the goal level-task performance relationship. A discussion of the findings and suggestions for further research are included.DePaul University