ABSTRACT MANAGER GOAL SETTING: AN EXPLORATION INTO ITS MEANING AND MEASUREMENT by Jack L. Mendleson Currently many managers believe goal setting is an important tool for improving the functioning of business organizations. Popular expressions of goal—setting ideas are management by objectives and management by results. Business managers have translated their strong belief in goal setting into a considerable demand for books and training programs about goal setting and for the services of consultants. But despite this flourish of activity in the past five years or so, little objective evidence exists which would either support or deny the claims made for goal setting. One of the very few relevant previous research projects was done within one department of one large corporation. This project reported finding positive relationships between various supervisor techniques in dealing with subordinates in goal-setting sessions and the degree to which the subordinate's work behavior was changed in a favorable direction as a result of goal setting. The present study goes beyond this earlier study. The present research involved superior-subordinate pairs in eight dif- ferent companies. It also assessed the relationships between goal-setting activity and two other logically Jack L. Mendleson related management phenomena, the degree of job understand— ing between superior and subordinate and two ratings of subordinate effectiveness (present effectiveness and poten- tial for promotion). First the researcher, working from a broad definition, made a large—scale review of business writing about goal setting. From this information the researcher put together a list of 118 statements about goal-setting behavior to measure the amount or extent of goal—setting behavior occurring within a superior-subordinate pair of managers. Next 29 goal-setting Specialists judged the extent of goal setting indicated by each statement on the list. The #2 statements on which the specialists were in greatest agreement made up the Goal-Setting Index (GSI). To derive the GSI from the specialists' judgments, the researcher adapted Thurstone's method of measuring attitudes, the method known as equal—appearing intervals. Here are three examples from the G81: From the lowest level of goal setting: At my organization level we're lucky if we have plans for tomorrow, let alone next week or next month. From the middle level: I get some specific feed- back about my performance, but I need more. From the highest level: Every so many months my boss and I sit down and decide how much I'm supposed to accomplish by specific dates in the future. When these dates actually arrive, we talk about how I did and what I should be shooting for during the next time period. Jack L. Mendleson Then, by having both the superior and subordinate check statements on the GSI with which they agreed, it was possible to derive quantitative scores indicating the level of goal-setting behavior occurring within the pair, as seen by: (l) the subordinate; (2) the superior viewing his subordinate's situation; and (3) the combined vieWpoint of the pair. Employing the GSI and two other measures in 25 superior-subordinate situations in the eight companies, the researcher found: 1. Confirmation of the hypothesis that there are significant, identifiable commonalities running through the wide variety of ways that goal—setting specialists describe manager goal setting. 2. Partial confirmation of the hypothesis that the extent of goal setting taking place within a superior-subordinate pair of managers can be measured. 3. Surprisingly, no significant relationship between the extent of goal setting within a superior-subordinate pair of managers and job understanding (extent to which the subordi- nate understood his superior's eXpectations for the subordinate's work). A. (a) Surprisingly, no significant relationship between the extent of goal setting within a superior-subordinate pair of managers and the superior's ratings of his subordinate's present performance; (b) on the other hand, a positive relationship, as eXpected, between two of the three measures of extent of goal setting and the superior's rating of his subordinate's promotability. 5. Surprisingly, no significant relationship between the extent of job understanding within the superior-subordinate pair of managers and the effectiveness ratings. Jack L. Mendleson The positive findings in “(b) provide tentative support for the idea that goal—setting efforts on the part of the pair lead to better chances for considering the subordinate promotable. The more the superior sees that he does goal setting with a particular subordinate, the more promotable he considers that subordinate to be. Also, the more the subordinate sees that he is doing goal setting with his superior, the more promotable the superior thinks the subordinate is. This support of the hypothesis is limited by the fact that no significant relationship occurred between the combined GSI for the pair and the promotability rating. How to eXplain the preponderance of unexpected results found in 3, A, and 5? One possible explanation: Of the three measures—-the GSI, the measure of job understanding, and the ratings-—the first two proved not as reliable, in a measurement sense, as one might hope. At the same time, however, the two measures were sufficiently reliable, though at a borderline level, to permit the researcher to make the attempt to assess the intercorrelations among the variables of interest. In view of the borderline reliability of these two measures, alternative conclusions can be drawn. First, as presently formulated the GSI at least provides a foundation for future attempts to measure goal setting since it does identify component parts of goal setting and isolates com- monalities among the ideas of various Specialists in goal Jack L. Mendleson setting. Within the framework of this first alternative more effort could be devoted to improving the reliability of how goal setting was measured. If a more reliable measure could be developed, then it is possible that a greater number of significant interrelationships would result. Second, the fact that positive interrelationships did not appear in most of the expected areas, although the measures in question were reliable enough to have possibly produced significant intercorrelations among the variables, suggests two possibilities: (a) The assumed chain of relationships from goal-setting behavior to better job understanding to effective subordinate performance is too simple a formulation. It may be necessary, in this complex field of manager behavior, to find additional intervening variables or events in order to obtain support for the above assumed chain of interrelationships. (b) It is also possible that this logically assumed chain of interrela- tionships does not exist except in scattered instances and that goal-setting efforts and better job understanding have little to do with leading to effective subordinate per— formance in the real world. All the above possibilities have to be faced. The finding of some positive relationships between goal—setting efforts and promotability, if confirmed by future research, may be quite important to management theory. At least a Jack L. Mendleson txeginning has been made in seeing some of the factors involved in understanding goal setting and other logically related management activities. MANAGER GOAL SETTING: AN EXPLORATION INTO ITS MEANING AND MEASUREMENT By \" Jack L? Mendleson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Department of Management 1967 .- o / A o ,I ‘1 _ ["1 f. A, , VI fl ‘, ' Copyright by Jack L. Mendleson 1967 I f /\ V) \J f‘ \ 2/ ‘K” f7 ‘7, / ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer gratefully acknowledges the help of his Thesis Committee: Dr. Dalton E. McFarland; Dr. Darab B. Unwalla; and Dr. Frederic R. Wickert, Chairman. Dr. Wickert was especially helpful with methodological questions. All three men provided valuable insights into designing research, collecting and analyzing data, and reporting results. The writer also acknowledges the cooperation of the numerous managers, authors, and consultants who were inter— viewed as a preliminary to the measurement carried out in this thesis. Special thanks are due to three General Electric peOple: to Miss Marion S. Kellogg, for making available the General Electric thinking about goal setting; to Dr. Stanley C. Duffendack, for granting permission to use the Job Perception Index in this thesis; and to Dr. Herbert H. Meyer, for presenting to the writer the history of the General Electric research in performance appraisal and goal setting. The study profited from the thoughtful judging per— formed by the 29 goal-setting specialists. Also, the 50 managers and their eight companies deserve hearty thanks for their open cooperation. Most important, the writer thanks his wife, Barbara. She typed, edited, criticized, praised-—all in just the right amounts at the right times. The thesis is dedicated ii to her and to Laura Ann, who was born during the final stages of the writing. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 LIST OF LIST OF Chapter I. II. III. TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Vi APPENDICES o o o o o o o o o o o o Vii INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESES . . . . . . 1 Definition of Manager Goal Setting Previous Research Goal-Setting Research Related Research with Superior-Subordinate Pairs Purposes of the Present Study Key Variables in the Study Hypotheses Rationale of the Hypotheses METHOD FOR TESTING HYPOTHESES . . . . . . 3A The Independent Variable, Extent of Goal Setting Definition of Extent of Goal Setting Review of Previous Writing Two Examples of Goal Setting Key Issues in Goal Setting Components of Goal Setting Measuring the Independent Variable, Extent of Goal Setting Measurement of the Two Dependent Variables Job Perception Index Subordinate Effectiveness Rating Measuring the Interrelationships Among the Three Variables Summary RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION OF MEASURING EACH OF THE THREE MAIN VARIABLES . . . . . . . 107 The Goal-Setting Index (GSI), Step One: Judging the 118 Statements Results Interpretation of the Judging of the 118 Statements The Goal-Setting Index (GSI), Step Two: The Managers' Responses to the A2-Item GSI iv Chapter Page Results Interpretation of GSI Results The Job Perception Index (JPI) Results Interpretation of JPI Results The Subordinate Effectiveness Rating (SER) Results Interpretation of SER Results Summary IV. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION OF INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE VARIABLES . . . .~ . . . . . 132 Intercorrelations Between the GSI's and the JPI Intercorrelations Between the GSI's and the Components of the SER Intercorrelations Between the JPI and the Components of SER Summary V. TESTING THE HYPOTHESES, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ON GOAL SETTING o o o c o o o o o o o o o 136 Testing the Hypotheses Conclusions Possible Explanations of the Findings of 3, Which Tests the Correlations Between Extent of Goal Setting and Job Under- standing Possible Explanations of the Findings of Hypothesis A, Which Tests the Correlations Between Extent of Goal Setting and Ratings Possible Explanations of the Findings of Hypothesis 5, Which Tests the Correlations Between Job Understanding and Ratings Complexities Surrounding Goal—Setting Behavior Implications for Future Research on Goal-Setting Behavior Final Statement BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Table 1-1 “-2 14-3 LIST OF TABLES Comparative Agreement Between Superior- Subordinate Pairs on Four Basic Areas of the Subordinate's Job . . . . . . . . The Distribution of Company Managers on the Perception Index . . . . . . . . . Number of the 118 Statements Falling into Each of the Seven Levels of Goal Setting Mean of the Scale Values of Statements by Content Categories . . . . . . . . Q Values From the Present Study and From Thurstone's Study . . . . . . . . . . Mean Q Values by Content Categories . . . Distribution of the Number of Statements for Each Number of X's per Statement . . . . Goal—Setting Index Scores for Superiors, Subordinates, and Superior-Subordinate Pairs Reliability of the GSI . . . . . . . . JPI Scores for the 25 Superior-Subordinate Pairs I O O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 Ratings on the SER . . . . . . . . . Intercorrelations Between the GSI's and the PI 0 O O O I O O O O O O O Intercorrelations Between the GSI's and the Components of SER . . . . . . . Intercorrelations Between the JPI and the Components of the SER . . . . . . . vi Page 18 22. 110 111 112 113 113 124 125 128 130 133 13A 135 Appendix A. B. LIST OF APPENDICES Page THE 118 STATEMENTS . . . . . . . . . 162 SCALE VALUES, Q VALUES, AND X JUDGMENTS OF THE 118 STATEMENTS . . . . . . . . . 17a GOAL SETTING STATEMENTS BY LEVEL OF GOAL SETTING O O O I O O O O O O 0 O 177 THE 118 STATEMENTS, ORGANIZED BY CONTENT CATEGORIES . . . . . . . . . . . 190 DISTRIBUTION OF STATEMENTS INTO LEVELS OF GOAL SETTING BY CONTENT CATEGORIES . . . 202 FORM OF THE LETTER TO THE JUDGES . . . . 20A JUDGES' INSTRUCTIONS . . . . . . . . 206 JUDGES' COMMENTS . . . . . . . . . 209 THE GOAL-SETTING INDEX . . . . . . . 217 SCALE VALUES AND Q VALUES OF THE GSI STATEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . 222 THE A2 STATEMENTS OF THE GSI ORGANIZED BY CONTENT CATEGORIES . . . . . . . . . 22“ THE 40 STATEMENTS MAKING UP THE JOB PERCEP- TION INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . 231 SCORING THE JOB PERCEPTION INDEX . . . . 235 SUBORDINATE EFFECTIVENESS RATING (SER) . . 2&2 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESES Currently many managers believe goal setting is an important tool for improving the functioning of business organizations. Popular expressions of goal-setting ideas are management by objectives and management by results. Business managers have translated their strong belief in goal setting into a considerable demand for books and training programs about goal setting and for the services of consultants. But despite this flourish of activity in the past five years or so, little objective evidence exists which would either support or deny the claims made for goal setting. One of the very few relevant previous research projects was done within one department of one large corporation. This project reported finding positive relationships between various supervisor techniques in dealing with subordinates in goal-setting sessions and the degree to which the subordinate's work behavior was changed in a favorable direction as a result of goal setting. The present study goes beyond this earlier study. The present research involved superior-subordinate pairs in eight different companies. It also assessed the relationships between goal-setting activity and two other logically related management phenomena, the degree of job understanding 1 between superior and subordinate and two ratings of sub- ordinate effectiveness (present effectiveness and potential for promotion). This chapter explains the particular focus of atten- tion of this study, then defines goal setting for purposes of this research. Next previous research into goal setting is surveyed, followed by other pertinent research with superior-subordinate pairs. This surveying leads to the purposes of this thesis. Next is the explanation of the three key variables. The chapter closes with the hypotheses of this study and a brief discussion of the rationale of these hypotheses. Later chapters discuss methods of testing the hypotheses, results, and interpretations. The researcher's first interest in goal setting is in its measurement. For example, can one superior-subordinate pair be said to practice goal setting to a greater extent than another pair? If so, on what basis? The researcher's second interest in goal setting, if the extent of its existence can be measured, is in measuring its effects. These two interests are the basis for this thesis. If these two kinds of measurements can be made, subsequent research efforts can become ever more situationally specific. Definition of Manager Goal Setting The term goal setting, somewhat more descriptive than management by objectives or management by results, is em- ployed throughout the study. The paragraphs of definition below represent an attempt to delineate a core of agreement among the various advocates of goal setting. The definition may seem very "open," even vague. This is intentional, for goal setting is to be de- fined in this study so that some key ideas of all-the major goal-setting theorists can be employed. Manager goal setting is that process of superior- subordinate interaction through which work goals and related matters are established for the subordinate manager. Work goals are current aims for the individual manager in the performance of his work assignment. These goals apply to a particular period of time; and, by the time of completion of the interaction, both superior and subordinate are aware of this period. "Related matters" are defined as any arrangements which somehow facilitate the setting or achieving of work goals by the subordinate manager. For goal setting to exist, certain of these matters must be present. First, some mutually understood mechanism must be devised through which goal attainment can be verified. This verification could consist of measurement, but it need not. Verification could consist of nothing more than the observation that an event specified in a work goal has in fact taken place. Second, this verification also implies some feedback of in- formation to the participants. Third, at the end of the period of time specified in the definition, some review of goal attainment must occur; and this demands additional superior—subordinate interaction. Finally, a recycling occurs, in which goals are once again set for the coming period. These four matters may be minimal or very elaborate. In addition, other matters related to goal setting may be present. These other matters will be developed below, through a review of the business writing about goal setting. When are work goals and related matters said to be "established"? The pair may or may not agree that the goals are appropriate and reasonable. This kind of agree- ment is not a necessary condition for having established work goals. For example, in one pair the superior manager may simply tell the subordinate manager what that subordi- nate's goals are to be for the coming period, and the sub— ordinate may believe the goals set are inappropriate and unreasonable. 0n the other hand, the subordinate may set his own goals without help from his superior, and the supe- rior may believe the goals are inappropriate and unreason- able but may agree for one reason or another that these arg_the goals. In short, goals have been established if: (1) the pair agrees what the subordinate's work goals actually are for the coming period; (2) the pair agrees on the length of the period; and (3) these "goals" meet the definition of goals presented above. Hughes has suggested the following condition: "Goal setting has been done when the individual knows what he expects of himself, not just what the manager expects of him."1 Hughes' statement, how- ever, is not a necessary condition of goal setting in this study. "Superior—subordinate interaction" is defined simply as a process of exchange of information between superior and subordinate, either oral or written, or both. The defi- nition does not turn on whether superior or subordinate initiated the interaction; nor does it turn on which party (if either) plays the dominant role in the decisions that result. Furthermore, the interaction may occur simultane- ously between the superior and several of his immediate subordinates. Group_goal setting satisfies the definition given here, provided that each superior-subordinate pair can be said to have "established" work goals, as explained above. For the present definition to apply this means that, although the goals may be established for the superior and various subordinates, each individual superior-subordinate pair must be clear on that individual subordinate's goals. The definition suggested here is broad enough to en- compass the literature under all the following labels: goal setting (whenever something more specific than organizational goals are discussed), management by objectives, management by results, standard setting, and performance objectives. 1Charles L. Hughes, Goal Setting, Key to Individual and Organizational Effectiveness (New York: American Management Association, 1965), p. 117. Previous Research Goal-setting Research The section which follows summarizes the research find— ings on goal setting, along with an analysis of the way in which goal setting was measured in each study. In research for his Master's thesis, Garwood received 113 questionnaire responses from managers in one company. Here are examples of his preliminary findings:1 Eighty-five per cent (85%) of the respondents felt that management by objectives has contributed to profitability at [the Company]. Seventy per cent (70%) of reSpondents felt that management by objectives facilitates planning more than previous approaches. These findings suggest an important implication: At least some managers in a business organization do get the idea that, following emphasis upon management by objectives, they are doing something they were not doing previously, or at least doing something more or better than previously. One of Garwood's stated purposes in the study is to evaluate the company's training program in management by objectives. Unfortunately he seems to have no measure of the extent to which the training program changed behavior of participants. Rather, his questions seem to assume that because the 1These were reported in the following memorandum to company officials: W. R. Garwood, "Survey of Management by Objectives Participants," September IA, 1966. At the time of most recent information, Garwood was a Master's candi- date at the University of Tennessee. managers underwent the training they are now employing man- agement by objectives, while previously they did not employ it. Raia, in his doctoral dissertation,:L studied a manager goal-setting program, the "Goals and Controls Program" of the Purex Corporation. Raia measured several variables which could be effects of the new program. The variables included: levels at which goals were set where the goals are traditional and quantifiable production goals; degree to which such goals were attained; an index of organizational functioning independent of goal setting and goal achievement, namely productivity; awareness of basic company goals among participants; overall attitude of participants; level of motivation of participants; and communication and mutual understanding. Raia reports that installation of the program is associated with generally favorable changes in each of the variables.2 Raia's study represents a significant step in goal-setting research because for the first time some of the relevant issues of goal setting have been measured and related to indices of organizational functioning. However, the relevance of these findings to the present study is limited for several reasons: lAnthony Paul Raia, "A Case Study of the Effects of Goal-Setting and Self—Control on Organization Performance" (Unpublished Ph.D.dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1963). 2Anthony Paul Raia, "Goal Setting and Self-Control: An Empirical Study at Purex Corporation, Ltd.," Journal of Manage- ment Studies, Vol. 2, No. 1 (February, 1965), pp. 3A-53. See also Raia, "A Second Look at Management Goals and Controls," California Management Review (Summer, 1966), pp. 49-58. l. The first three of the variables listed above were measured using statistics relevant to the production departments of Purex. These measure— ments would be directly relevant in few (if any) other companies. Neither would the measurements be relevant to functional areas other than production. 2. All other variables were measured only after installation of the new program. This meant that the researcher could only infer that improvements had occurred, based on a limited amount of inter- view data and reportedly high present levels of each of these variables. 3. Instead of measuring the central variable, goal setting, Raia simply assumed that goal setting was actually taking place, or that the amount of goal setting had increased, because a new program was installed. A. The nature of the change brought about by the new program is not adequately specified. The third and fourth limitations are quite serious from the point of view of the present research, for the in- stallation of a new program does not ensure significant changes in the essence of superior-subordinate relationships. It is certainly possible that participants may conform to the formal requirements of the program with little change in actual performance. In short, Raia did not really measure goal setting, at least not at the level of a given superior-subordinate pair. Rather, he assumed "goal setting and self-control" came into being at Purex, where it had not existed pre— viously because of: the emphasis of the president of the company and a policy pronouncement; and a Goals and Controls Program which consisted of formally required goal setting, control reports, and performance review. One of Raia's findings, however, is quite pertinent to the present study. He found that communication and mutual understanding between the plants and company head- quarters improved as a result of the program. No rigorous measurements were made on this point. Rather, this finding is based on Raia's judgmental evaluations of his interview data.v He reasons that the face-to-face performance reviews, installed as part of the program, "appear to facilitate two—way communication and mutual understanding between the parties."1 Some background about Purex's Goals and Controls Program will help to put this conclusion into proper per-~ spective for purposes of the present research. The performance review was one of three integral parts of the Goals and Controls Program. (The other two parts were: the formally required goal setting, in which the manager himself set the goals and his superior reviewed them; and control reports in which the information is supplied lIbid., p. 121. 10 directly to the individual manager concerned, but with a copy to "higher levels of management.") However, this per- formance review was uniquely an invention of Purex manage- ment and is not at all representative of common practice. The Purex performance review provides operating line managers the opportunity to meet with representatives of higher management on a personal basis, whereas the more common practice in industry is for the individual manager to meet exclusively with his immediate superior for this review. At Purex these meetings take place alternately at the plant and at corporate headquarters, and this intro- duces another significant deviation from common practice. The meeting at corporate headquarters is significant because the managerial people from the plant have an opportunity to discuss a wide range of problems with the various staff departments of the company. Raia's evidence of improved communication and mutual understanding between the plants and company headquarters can now be viewed in clearer perspective: Six of the eight line managers interviewed reported that the presence of higher authority at the review is an important factor in the removal of obstacles. Each was able to recall several specific instances in which obstacles to higher goal levels and improved performance were removed because authorization which otherwise would not have been obtained was granted at reviews. This appears to be particularly true when the solution involves the expenditure of a significant amount of funds. lIbid., p. 117. 11 Two conclusions emerge. First, because of the uniqueness of the Purex performance review, it would not be reasonable to generalize the finding of greater communication and mutual understanding to other companies with different performance review programs. Second, while the finding concerns an important area of inquiry, the evidence presented is very limited and further research is needed. This research is part of the present study. The General Electric Company has conducted research into performance appraisal and related subjects, many of which have relevance to goal setting.1 In fact, one of these findings seems to have produced much of the current interest in goal setting and especially "results-oriented" appraisal. It is summarized as follows: Appreciable improvements in performance were realized only when specific goals were established with time deadlines and results measures agreed upon. Regardless of how much emphasis the manager gave to an improvement need in the appraisal discussion, if this did not get translated into a specific goal,2 very little performance improvement was achieved. This finding was based upon: (1) observation of 8A superior- subordinate pairs in performance appraisal and goal planning 1The research findings summarized here appear in two basic reports: Emanuel Kay, et al., "A Study of the Perfor- mance Appraisal Interview," March, 1962; and Emanuel Kay and Roy Hastman, "An Evaluation of Work Planning and Goal Set— ting Discussions," March, 1966. Both were published by the Behavioral Research Service of the General Electric Company. 2Kay, et a1., op. cit., summary page. 12 discussions; (2) before and after interviews with subordi- nates; and (3) a follow-up check 12 to 1A weeks after the performance appraisal and goal planning discussions to determine the degree to which performance improvement had been achieved. The finding was consistent with earlier research in other companies, which found that specific goals were necessary for improvement to occur at worker levels. More broadly viewed, the General Electric research seems to demonstrate unexpected consequences of typical per- formance appraisal discussions. A prime purpose of these discussions is to trigger an improvement in performance. A common assumption among managers is that subordinates want to know "how they stand" or "how they're doing." Even more "obvious," one is not likely to improve unless he knows where he is falling short. As a result, the boss finds himself reciting the subordinate's weaknesses or areas in need of improvement. The General Electric research, however, found that criticisms of performance (and this can be read as negative criticism) "typically resulted in de- fensiveness on the part of the subordinate."1 More tenta— tively, the researchers suggested, "It is very possible that criticism creates defensiveness and defensiveness retards improvement."2 At any rate, the findings clearly demonstrate lLoc. cit. 21bid., p. 33. 13 that "the more criticism and defensiveness observed in the appraisal discussion, the less performance improvement achieved 12.to 14 weeks later."1 By the time of the 1966 study2 the results of the first study, reported above, had played an important role in the installation of "Work Planning and Review" discus- sions. "Work Planning and Review," in more general terms, is a goal-setting program. This later study confirmed the earlier results and added to them: Maximum improvement in job performance was realized by those employees whose WP&R [Work Planning and Review] interviews consisted predominantly of problem— solving discussions--the review of problems encountered in achieving goals and the discussion of alternative solutions to these problems and anticipated future problems. The least performance improvement was noted for those men whose WP&R interviews had been conducted like a performance appraisal interview. The same pattern of criticism by the manager, followed by defensiveness on the part of the subordinate, and lack of improvement in subsequent job performance found in a previous study of the performance appraisal process was observed in this study. Confirmation is provided in a study by Morton et a1.Ll which is apparently independent of the General Electric research. The so—called "goals method" or appraisal and review was found better than the "rating method" in several lIbid., summary page. 2Kay and Hastman, op. cit. 3Ibid., inside cover page. “R. B. Morton, et al., "An Experiment in Performance Appraisal and Review,” Journal of the American Society of Training Directors, Vol. 15, No. 5 (May, 1961), pp. 19-27. 14 respects. The goals method created higher agreement, higher "teamness," clearer "routes to improvement," less hostility among subordinates, and, paralleling the General Electric findings, greater eagerness among subordinates to change their performance. For purposes of the present thesis it is instructive to note the focus of attention of the General Electric re- searchers. This attention was given to what interaction occurred between superior and subordinate, rather than what program was in effect. Naturally the program did have an impact. But no assumption was made that various managers would all react to the same extent or even in the same direction to the program. In addition to the focus of attention, General Electric's research efforts also seem Optimally Specific. Note the spe- cificity of emphasis of the underlined terms in the following summary of the 1962 study: The most constructive finding of the study was that discussions involving work_planning, gpal setting, and subsequent reviews of performance, which focused on specific, Short-termgplans and goals, yielded much greater returns in improved job performance han did comprehensive summary appraisal discussions. [Under- lining added.] By specifying meanings in detail, General Electric was able to begin measuring how much goal setting was occurring. For example, work planning was defined to include the following elements: 1Kay and Hastman, op. cit., p. 1. 15 . . . Work goals, a strategy for reaching the goals, identification of alternate routes for goal attainment, the identification of resources required to meet the goals ($ budget, manpower, facilities, and information), the identification of tasks necessary for reaching each goal and the time schedule for task completion, measure- ments to identify progress and achievement, the identifi— cation of check points to review progress and make necessary revisions in the plan, and a plan to communi- cate with those who will affect or be affected by the plan's progress. This detailed definition facilitated the development of a research instrument, the Work Planning Survey. In addition to the report from which the quoted material above came, a manual was developed2 through which a manager could survey his own operation. Although a computer program was developed to process the data, and although considerable information is provided in the manual for feeding the results of the survey back to the participants and then for following up, no summary evaluation or score was developed. Likert's recent study of salesmen and their managers has some relevance for goal setting. Likert summarizes: The results . . . point to a fundamental conclusion: sales managers who,as seen by their men, have a well- organized plan of operation, high sales goals, use group methods of supervision, and apply the principle of supportive relationships are appreciably more likely to have better sales units under their lAnonymous, "A Composite Description of Work Planning Based Upon Four Departments," a mimeographed paper prepared for internal use at General Electric, undated. 2Anonymous, "Manual for Administering Work Planning Survey and Interpreting Results," prepared by the Individual Development Methods Service of the Management Development and Employee Relations Services, General Electric Company, 1963. l6 direction than are the managers who, as seen by their men, diSplay the opposite pattern of behavior. The latter are much more likely to be in charge of poorer sales units.l [Emphasis added.] The important point for the present research is the measure of goals employed. The two goals measures consisted of the extent to which the salesmen £221.(1) that the sales manager has high sales goals and (2) that the other salesmen have high sales goals. Although this measure lacks the Specifi- city of the General Electric work, it points up the essential subjectivity of the goal-setting process. The researcher is doomed to great uncertainty if hp_must say that one superior-subordinate pair's goals are set at higher levels than another pair's, for each pair's Situation is expected to differ significantly. Even generalizations about goal levels of the subordinates of a single superior will be very difficult for an outsider. Several conclusions may be drawn from this review of the research on goal setting. First, goal setting, as de- fined in this study, serves the worthwhile purpose of facilitating improvement of managerial performance. Goal setting also seems to do this better than the comprehensive performance review, which has been widely advocated and widely, if perhaps poorly, practiced for many years. Second, lRensis Likert, "New Patterns In Sales Management," Michigan Business Papers, No. 37, 1962 (published by the Bureau of Business Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan). l7 goal-setting programs seem to have some positive effects, although the cost of achieving these effects in relation to their organizational value has not been determined. Further- more, dysfunctions may yet be found which outweigh these positive effects. Third, the specificity of the General Electric research suggests that, within one company's cor- porate philosophy, programs, and procedures, detailed research into components of goal setting can be conducted. Whether components can be identified which will apply to several companies remains to be seen. Fourth, both the Likert research and the General Electric Work Planning Survey suggest the fruitfulness of focusing upon the subjective evaluations of the participants. Related Research with Superior- Subordinate Pairs The central concerns of the following review of find- ings may be summarized in two questions: 1. What are the manifestations of disagreement and misunderstanding between superior and subordinate managers? 2. How significant is this disagreement and mis- understanding? The following table summarizes the findings in a study by Maier et al.1 Most pertinent for the present research is 1Norman R. F. Maier, et al., Superior-Subordinate Communication in Management, AMA Research Study 52 (New York: American Management Association, 1961). 18 TABLE l-l. Comparative agreement between superior- subordinate pairs on four basic areas of the subordinate's job (percentages based on study of 58 pairs in patterned interviews).l O 1 2 3 A H r-l g m m. < .—+ ,c: r“! H : ecu :4: c m cra o om o om o< m c... m 043 43:20 pr—i 9:20 .04: 2:c scar: CCU CCUri Eco m one. mm one. mo +>Ecn E+>o E m E+>o 838:0 01010 a) E! (11.00 <1) E1 (DI—10 OGJH (DU) (DISH (Dd) (Dgoals and path facilitation 13 3.6 5. Career development; personal preferences; subordinate autonomy.... 22 3.6 6. Relation of goal attainment to individual rewards 16 2.5 TOTAL STATEMENTS 118 OVERALL MEAN 3.1 *The judging process did not affect this total number of statements in each category. This total appears here merely to give an indication of the relative weighting of each category. X judgments.—Table 3—5 presents the number of X judgments (that a given statement is irrelevant to level of goal setting). This table shows that 53 statements received no X judgments, 27 received one X judgment, . . . and no statements received as many as seven X judgments. 112 A.o.~ .OSHm> manom Ezefixme one can mucoEmpmpm 0: ocean .Hmo one CH msmmmooo: po: was HO>OH unocwan on» step seamen mpowoumo oco wcfiOSHoca mo OLSOOOOLQ manev .msommpmo pmnwfin pxoc one CH pcoEomem was» pmomad OQOOmLSQB .osspooosd pneumfimcoo m mm: 09 .oo.HH .pcsoem OHOHmmOQ Ezefixme one no osam> mamom m pm: ucoEOpmpm mco mmsmomo NHIHH mLOmOOmo on» OOOSHOCH OCOpmpscB .nossno on» mo soap Imfiomhdop pmowcomum on» OOOCOmmhdom HHIOH mafinz .nossco on» mo cowpmHomhddm umonwfin on» poucomohdop filo .oamow m.ocoumssce CH .Azmlmm .dd ..pfio .mo .OQOpmhscev H magma was CH pcsom mm mums m.o:0pmpsne Eopm monam> a some pmpmHSOHmo monogmmmos 659* :.H NH-HH p.H HHIOH m.H no Ho>oqv sum m.m owum Am Hosoqv mum m.m WNW m.m Am Ho>oqv mu: w.H mum m.m As Hosoqv sum s.H mus Au Hoeoqv mum 0.A sum m.w mum M.m in gospel m-s w.H Hus s.H he Hostel Hus nohzno opp ppmzoe m: .m cam H > a z assesses to Ho>oq osHo> a not: measeom Hoop so Hoeou spouses or» onosoe oosefioea meannom atom to Ho>oq so nosfio> a some mo Ho>oq mo msHm> a cam: m.OCOpmp:zB .>63um m.oc0pmsdce EOLM paw heapm uQOmOLd one Eopm mosam> G .mlm mqmfiooom mono: IHULODSW .HO .HQQESZ opoom mane wcfi>fimoom mpOHpmdzm mo embasz opoom mace wcfi>fiooom mefimm mpmcfipsopzm ItOHLOdsm mo pmoEsz Score on GSI 00020 10011 00000 10110 00312 01311 11172 001.4”. 12162 90123 ”5555 02131 11320 03220 901 566 25 25 25 TOTAL .2 .1 .1 MEAN .A8 .A3 .37 STANDARD DEVIATION 125 for the 25 superior GSI scores, 25 subordinate GSI scores, and the GSI scores for the 25 superior—subordinate pairs. Table 3-7 shows the results. TABLE 3-7. Reliability of the GSI (by correlating odd— vs. even-numbered statements). At the 5% Level of Confidence (using Fisher's 2 tech- nique):c m CH}: (1) (I) O\/ l H H OG+O o a 4—35: 00C 01-113 H'U c o o m$4 ms. (1)-H 'UJJ-r-l U) U) H43 a1C+J OCH O‘H oco +>mcd QC) :10 HH CHI—i 'Ha) mom $4.0 $44.) cHS-c San-{$4 @H (DH a>h sleap 3 E CLE 00 oeo Ow! QH DO 0010 pit—l DH Superiors Only 69 82 .63* .92 Subordinates Only 36 53 .17* .77 Superior- Subordinate Pairs .51 .68 .1A* .75 aThis is the product—moment coefficient of correlation. The calculation followed the procedure summarized in Joseph Tiffin and Ernest J. McCormick, Industrial Psychology, Ath ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1958), pp- 5A5-5A7. bThe researcher applied the Spearman—Brown formula to correct for a scale of twice the length, as eXplained in J. P. Guilford, Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education, Ath ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 19657. p. AS7. cCalculations followed Guilford, op. cit., p. 162. dCorrected r was used. a All these correlations were obviously significantly different from zero. 126 Interpretation of GSI Results The manager's response to the GSI Showed that despite the complexity and diversity of the A2 statements, all of the superior and subordinate managers in the sample could make the evaluations requested (i.e., to check the state- ments with which they agreed). To be sure, some managers questioned the wording of several statements; and a very small number of managers could not understand the meaning of one or two statements even after some discussion with the interviewer. But these were definitely problems asso- ciated with a very small minority of the sample. The experience of administering the GSI to managers suggests two conclusions about the GSI. First, the manager did not find the language in the statements unusual. Second, the task itself (i.e., making individual evaluations concerning many fragments of managerial behavior) was not too difficult or foreign to the respondents. The several reliabilities of the GSI, as reported in Table 3-7, leave something to be desired, using common rule- of thumb standards advocated by Specialists in measurement. Only the superiors' GSI's, with a product-moment correlation of odds vs. even items of .82, reaches a level of reliability customarily considered adequate for research purposes. However, since research into manager goal setting is just beginning and since a wide mix of behavior and perceptions is involved, the reported reliabilities may be adequate. 127 In summary, the GSI is an operational measuring device. However, the reliabilities obtained suggest some reservations about the usefulness of the GSI in its present form. Never— theless, because this thesis is exploratory, hypothesis testing goes ahead and uses the GSI scores obtained. The conclusions drawn in Chapter 5 take into account the reserva- tions about the GSI reliabilities. The Job Perception Index (JPI) Results The reader will recall that each of the 50 managers in the company study sorted the deck of A0 cards into order of importance. Then the researcher calculated the rank order correlation for each of the 25 superior—subordinate pairs1 and obtained 25 scores on the JPI. These correla- tion scores were all positive, ranging from .01 to .60. The mean JPI was .30. Table 3—8 shows the distribution of the scores. Interpretation of JPI Results The mean in the present study (.30) is lower than the mean of the General Electric data (.A7). Unfortunately, it was not possible to calculate the statistical signifi- cance of this difference between means since the raw scores for the General Electric sample were not available. The 1The procedure for this computation is presented in Appendix M. 128 TABLE 3-8. JPI scores for the 25 superior-subordinate pairs. Groupings of Rank—order Corre- Number of Pairs Receiving lations (JPI Scores) Scores in Each Grouping .01 - .05 A .06 - .10 1 .11 — .15 A .16 — .20 l .21 - .25 0 .26 - .30 1 .31 - .35 3 .36 — .A0 2 .Al - .A5 2 .A6 - .50 l .51 - .55 3 .56 - .60 3 TOTAL 25 MEAN .30 researcher asked Duffendack for his interpretation of the different results for the two samples. Duffendack responded in part: I can offer no readily obvious explanation for the differences in averages. Your distribution does fall well within the range of our distribution, so we do find many scores like yours, and many managers whose average scores would parallel those you found. lStanley C. Duffendack, in a letter to the researcher dated April 13, 1967. 129 The present results with the JPI for the sample of executives in the present study apparently fall within the range encountered in General Electric groups. There is no reason to suppose that the sample in the present study is very different from General Electric groups or that the JPI was measuring something very different in the present research. The Subordinate Effectiveness Rating (SER) Results The rating form used for the SER appears in Appendix N. In each superior-subordinate pair of managers (N = 25 pairs) the superior rated the subordinate along two five-point scales (from 1 to 5). Table 3—9 shows the distribution of ratings along each scale. The correlation between the two five-point scales of the SER, the ratings of current performance on the one hand and promotability on the other, was found to be .10. Interpretation of SER Results The low correlation between the two scales suggested that the two scales were independent and there would be little point in combining the two ratings. To interpret briefly, the two scales of the SER, treated separately, provide measures useful in testing the hypotheses. 130 TABLE 3-9. Ratings on the SER. SERl (performance) SER2 (promotability) Rating Number of Subordinates Number of Subordinates Receiving This Rating Receiving This Rating 1 l 2 2 O 3 3 0 6 3.5* l _ A 1A 11 A.5* l l 5 8 2 TOTAL 25 25 *In the three instances in which the ratings are not whole numbers, the manager making the rating could not choose between two adjacent whole numbers. In these instances he was permitted to rate his subordinate midway between the two numbers. Summary The analysis of the first of the two steps in measur— ing goal-setting activity, namely, the Specialists' judging of the 118 statements, suggested that the judging phase of the research provided an adequate base from which to build a measure of the independent variable, level of goal setting. The analysis of the second of the two steps indicated that the GSI, as put together, could serve as an operational 131 measure. The reliabilities for the GSI scores were rather low but nevertheless probably adequate for the eXploratory level of this research. The measurement characteristics of the JPI were such as to warrant its acceptance as an operational measure. 'Finally, the measurement characteristics of the two SER ratings indicated their adequacy for the present research. CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION OF INTER— CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE VARIABLES This chapter presents the intercorrelations between the measures of goal setting (GSI), the measure of job understanding (JPI), and the two components of the rating (SER). There are three measures of the GSI: the superior's GSI, the subordinate's GSI, and the GSI for the superior— subordinate pair. Chapter 3 reported the low correlation between superior and subordinate scores (.26). This cor- relation suggested that superior and subordinate results should be reported separately, in addition to the results for the pair. 7 Chapter 3 also reported a low correlation (.10) between the two components of the SER, the performance rating and the promotability rating. This correlation made it clear that the SER measured two distinct variables and that there was little point in working with the total SER. The procedure in Chapter 3 of separating results from interpretation of those results will be continued. Tables 14-1, A-2, and A—3 contain the results of the intercorrela— ‘tions, and the paragraphs accompanying each table interpret those results . 132 133 The correlation coefficients reported in tables A-l, A—2, and A—3 are tetrachoric r's.l Each standard error reported is a standard error of a zero tetrachoric r.2 Intercorrelations Between the GSI's and the JPI Table A-1 presents the intercorrelations. TABLE A-l. Intercorrelations between the GSI's and the JPI. JPI Correlation Standard Coefficient Error Superior's GSI .30 .32 Subordinate's GSI .1A .32 Pair's GSI .36 .32 When a correlation coefficient is as low as those in Table A-1, the important question is whether the two vari— ables are truly correlated or whether the coefficient was 3 Rejecting the null hypothesis (r = 0) obtained by chance. at the .05 level of confidence would require that the obtained r in each case be 1.96 or more times the standard error. In fact each r in Table A-1 is less than 1.96 times lLeone Chesire, Milton Saffir, and L. L. Thurstone, meputing Diagrams for the Teprachoric Correlation Coeffi- cient (Chicago: University of Chicago Bookstore, 1933). 2Guilford, Op. cit., p. 330. 3Guilford, op. cit., p. 162. 13A its standard error and the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. This means that the correlation coefficients in Table A-1 may have occurred by chance and that there may well be no correlation between the variables. Intercorrelations Between the GSI and the Components of SER Table A-2 reports the intercorrelations. TABLE A-2. Intercorrelations between the GSI's and the components of the SER. SERl SER2 (Present Performance) (Promotability) Correlation Standard Correlation Standard Coefficient Error Coefficient Error Superior's GSI .A5 .32 .67 .31 Subordinate's GSI .11 .32 .60 .31 Pair's GSI -.10 .32 .16 .31 Again, rejecting the null hypothesis (r = 0) at the .05 level of confidence would require that the obtained r in each case be 1.96 Or more times the standard error. This test is approximately met in the correlations between both the subordinate's GSI and SER (promotability) and the 2 superior's GSI and SER In these two cases the null hypoth- 20 esis can be rejected. This means that these correlations are unlikely to have occurred by chance. For the other four 135 correlations in Table A-2 the null hypothesis cannot be rejected; these correlations may well have occurred by chance. Intercorrelations Between the JPI and the Components of the SER Table A-3 shows the intercorrelations. TABLE A—3. Intercorrelations between the JPI and the com- ponents of the SER. JPI Correlation Standard Coefficient Error SERl (Present Performance) -.01 .33 SER2 (Promotability) .22 .33 Following the reasoning and calculations in the pre- vious sections of this chapter, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The correlations reported may well have occurred by chance. Summary This chapter presented the results and interpretation of intercorrelations between the variables. This chapter and Chapter 3 presented all the relevant results and inter- pretation of results. Chapter 5 draws material from Chapter 3 and Chapter A as part of its evidence in the testing of hypotheses. CHAPTER V TESTING THE HYPOTHESES, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ON GOAL SETTING With the results and interpretation of Chapters 3 and A as a foundation, Chapter 5 reports the tests on the hypothe— sf ses and then draws overall conclusions from the present research. The chapter concludes with implications for future empirical research into goal-setting behavior. Testing_the Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: There are significant, identifiable commonalities of vieWpoint among the various systems of manager goal setting; and these commonalities will be reflected in the independent judgments of a sample of various specialists in goal setting. This hypothesis is confirmed. Following is the evidence. One body of evidence confirming Hypothesis 1 is the successful development of the Goal-Setting Index (GSI). From surveying the writing about manager goal setting, the researcher was able to put together 118 statements, each of which describes some Significant aspect of behavior occurring when a superior and a subordinate interact during oal settin . g g 136 137 In the process of deriving the statements, six content categories emerged. The researcher might have developed six indexes, one for each of the categories. Instead, he found it possible to consider the six categories as parts of one broad activity, namely, goal setting. Each of the Six categories simply became a somewhat separate facet of the overall activity.l Next the researcher asked A0 goal-setting specialists to judge the extent of goal setting indicated by the behavior spelled out in each of the 118 statements. The fact that 29 performed the judging as requested lends further support to the hypothesis. While several of these 29 expressed sug- gestions and criticisms, all of them performed the judging as requested. Nine of the remaining eleven gave reasons of time or sent in their answers too late; only two indicated they found it impossible to perform the judging. A second body of evidence confirming Hypothesis 1 is the statistical evidence obtained in connection with the judging of the statements. The fact that the judges were able to go through the statements, one by one, and think that they were all in the Same universe is one support for Hypothesis 1, as we have already seen. In addition, when the researcher checked how closely the judges agreed with 1The six statements served the useful function in later constructing the GSI of insuring that all six dimensions of goal-setting behavior were fairly represented in the GSI. 138 each other after having independently judged the statements, he found considerable agreement. If agreement had been low, high Q values would have resulted. Instead, the Q values found in this study were closely parallel to those Thurstone obtained in constructing his prototype scale many years ago (see Table 353, p. 112). More support for Hypothesis 1 comes from the small number of X judgments that the judges used. The judges evidently did not find many statements which they considered irrelevant to the extent of goal setting. A still further way of supporting Hypothesis 1 is quite different from the preceding ones. This way asks the reader to read through the A2 statements in the GSI, those with the lowest Q values, and judge for himself the high degree to which they reflect similar content. See Appendix K in which the statements appear by levels as follows: prgi Statement Numbers 0-1 (lowest level of goal setting) 1 through 6 1-2 7 through 12 2-3 13 through 18 3—A (middle level of goal setting) 19 through 2A A-5 25 through 30 5-6 31 through 36 6-7 (highest level of goal setting) 37 through 42 139 Besides studying the statements by levels, the reader may get a different but nevertheless confirming view of content Similarity by studying the statements by the six content categories. Although Appendix C presents all 118 statements by level, Appendix K may be more useful at this point since it is limited to those statements with the lowest Q values in the judging. These A2 statements, of course, made up the GSI. Hypothesis 2: The extent of goal setting taking place within a superior-subordinate pair of managers can be measured where gOal setting is viewed as a wide-ranging concept involving not only work goals and the process of setting goals but also various related matters.1 This hypothesis is at least partially confirmed. Following is the evidence. The Goal—Setting Index, developed in this study, and administered successfully to 25 superior and 25 subordinate managers, stands as a limited piece of evidence that the extent of goal setting can be measured as specified in the hypothesis. A factor limiting the confirmation of Hypothesis 2 is the relatively low Split—half reliabilities found for two of the three GSI measures. The researcher found that only the superior managers' GSI's had reliabilities high enough ‘ 1The reader will recall that these related matters include verification, feedback, review, and recycling. For a more complete discussion, see Chapter 1, p. 3. 1A0 to be acceptable if one uses common rules of thumb that authorities in measurement advocate. The subordinates' GSI's were relatively unreliable. Since the GSI's for the superior-subordinate pair are each simply the mean of the superior's GSI score and the subordinate's GSI score, the low reliability of the combined score can perhaps be explained by the relatively unreliable component, the subg ordinate's GSI. At the same time some anticipated indirect evidence that the GSI measured goal—setting behavior did not emerge. Hypotheses 3 and A involved interrelating the GSI with other variables. If the correlations hypothesized had been high in the expected direction (positive), the logical relation- ships between the GSI and the other variables would have been demonstrated. Then, insofar as the other variables had content validity, this content validity would have generalized to the GSI. Since the intercorrelations tended not to be significantly different from zero, what the GSI measures in this intercorrelational setting is not clear. Possible explanations for these low intercorrelations appear below in the discussion about the support for the remaining three hypotheses, all of which involve the inter- correlations. There is one other relationship between Hypothesis 2 and the low intercorrelations that remains to be explained in connection with Hypotheses 3, A, and 5. Just as 1A1 reliability is an important consideration in Hypothesis 2, the support for Hypotheses 3 and A, which is in the form of intercorrelations, also depends upon the reliability of the various measures. Although the adequacy of the reliabilities of the GSI, the JPI, and even of the SER may be in some respects deficient,the analysis that follows, made on the working assumption that the reliabilities are ade- quate for exploratory purposes, points to interesting areas of investigation. The following three hypotheses concern the interrela- tionships among the three main variables of the study. Hypothesis 3: The extent of goal settipg_within each superior-subordinate pair of managers is positively correlated with the jpb understanding_of that pair (where job understanding is measured by perceptual congruence and where extent of goal setting is measured by all three methods: superior's view, subordinate's view, and combined view). This hypothesis is not supported. A brief reminder of the rationale of the hypothesis precedes the evidence. The researcher's review of the writing on goal set- ting strongly suggested the hypothesized relationship. The rationale was that superior—subordinate interaction during goal setting led to increased job understanding. Because of goal setting the subordinate could not help but understand more clearly what his superior expected him to do. The correlations between the three measures of extent of goal setting (the GSI) and the measure of job understand- ing (the JPI) are not significantly different from zero. (Table A-1 reports these correlations.) 1A2 Hypothesis A: The extent of goal setting within a superior-subordinate pair of managers is positively correlated with the superior's ratings of the sub- ordinate (where extent of goal setting is measured by the three ways). This hypothesis is partly supported. A brief reminder of the rationale of the hypothesis precedes the evidence. The extent of goal setting occurring within a superior— subordinate pair, following the writers on goal setting, leads to better performance on the part of the subordinate as he learns what is expected in more detail and as he comes to have targets to shoot for. The researcher began with the often-postulated causal relationship between goal setting and present performance. The researcher added a further assumption that the higher levels of performance caused by high levels of goal setting would Show up in the superior's ratings of his subordinate's present performance and promotability. Of the six correlations shown in Table A-2, two are statistically significant: the positive correlations between the superior's GSI and the promotability rating; and the positive correlation between the subordinate's GSI and the promotability rating. These positive findings provide tentative support for the idea that goal-setting efforts on the part of the pair lead to better chances for considering the subordinate promotable. The more the superior sets goals with a particu- lar subordinate, the more promotable he considers the sub- ordinate to be. Also, the more the subordinate sets goals 1A3 with his superior, the more promotable the superior thinks the subordinate is. This support of the hypothesis is limited by the fact that no significant relationship occurred between the combined GSI for the pair and the promotability rating. None of the three correlations between goal setting and present performance is statistically Significant. Hypothesis 5: The job understanding within a superior-subordinate pair of managers (measured by perceptual congruence) is positively correlated with the superior's ratings of the subordinate. This hypothesis is not supported. A brief reminder of the rationale of the hypothesis follows. Throughout the management literature is the notion that if the subordinate understands his superior's expecta- tions the subordinate can achieve higher levels of perform- ance. Although comparing performance across different companies and different functions is difficult, the SER provided a promising measure to reflect different levels of performance. Neither of the correlations between job understanding and ratings is statistically significant (see Table A-3). Conclusions This section builds on the rationale of the hypotheses and the findings from testing the hypotheses. The conclu- sions begin with a summary statement of the three hypotheses that involve interrelationships, namely, Hypotheses 3, A, 1AA and 5. From testing these three hypotheses the researcher unearthed several complexities surrounding goal-setting behavior. Following the discussion of these complexities, the final section presents implications for future research on goal setting. The research in this thesis hypothesized that all of the eleven intercorrelations among the three basic variables would be positive. In point of fact, only two of these correlations turned out to be Significantly different from zero. These conclusions aim to provide summary explanations for all the above findings. Discussion of the two positive correlations appears below in the appropriate section on extent of goal setting and ratings. What are possible explanations for the lack of correlation in the other nine cases? (1) The first possibility is that if one takes the nine low coefficients of correlation at their face value, then there exists no relationship between the variables represented by these correlations. (2) The second possibility is that the variables may be positively interrelated, in keeping with the hypotheses, but that these nine interrelationships did not show up in the present study because of either or both the following sub-possibilities: (a) other variables 1A5 intervene and were not measured in this research;1 (b) the measures employed were not sufficiently reliable. Discussion of this last possibility, insufficient reliability, appears in a later section, implications for future research. In this discussion of conclusions the researcher assumes for the moment that the measures, GSI and JPI, are sufficiently reliable, though perhaps at no more than a borderline level, to permit considering possibilities (l) and (2a). Each of the three sections immediately following;explores the conclusions suggested by possibilities (l) and (2a). In each discussion of possibility (l) the ramifications of this possibility receive attention and in each discussion of possibility (2a) an example of an intervening variable appears. Ppssible Explanations of the Findingp of Hypothesis 3, Which Tests the Correlations Between Extent of Goal Setting and Job Understanding Suppose that one concludes from the evidence with respect to Hypothesis 3 that there is no relationship between the extent of goal-setting behaviorenuithe superior-subordinate pair's mutual job understanding. This lack of relationship 1This thesis had built into its design the testing of the effects of one intervening variable, job understanding. Underlying Hypotheses 3, A, and 5 was the premise that job understanding intervenes between goal setting and the ratings. The low correlation found in Hypotheses 3 and 5 did not sup- port the premise of this particular intervening variable. 1A6 would suggest that an important claim made by many advocates of goal setting does not prove to be true, namely, that goal- setting efforts bring about a significant meeting of the minds between superior and subordinate about what the superior expects from the subordinate.1 If present goal—setting efforts do not bring about such a meeting of the minds, managers might either redesign present goal-setting efforts or, if redesign is not feasible, de-emphasize goal setting. The second possibility, as the researcher suggested above, is that a correlation does exist, but that other variables intervene. For example, the degree of influence of the superior manager on his own superiors could be an intervening factor. If the superior is not very influential, his subordinates may-not feel that understanding ppip superior's expectations is important.2 Therefore, he may have no incentive to attain the kind of job understanding measured in this thesis. On the other hand, if the superior is influential with his own superiors, the subordinate may 1For a fuller discussion of this claim of the goal- setting advocates see the review in Chapter 2 of business writing about goal setting. Specifically, see page A2 in Chapter 2 (Drucker), page A3 (McGregor), and page A6 (Hughes). 2A dramatically clear example is the case of "Tony Rodwell" (in William R. Dill, et al., The New Managers, Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1962, pages 68476). Rodwell, a recent college graduate, after only a few months' experience with his company, was assigned as assistant to the chief of production scheduling. Rodwell knew that the factory manager considered this chief to be a weak manager, and for this reason Rodwell made no particular effort to understand the chief's expectations. 1A7 feel that the best chance for his own advancement lies in understanding his superior's eXpectations.l Possible Explanations of the Findings of Hypothesis A, Which Tests the Correlations Between Extent of Goal Setting and Ratings First, as a result of the relationship between extent of goal setting and the promotability rating, one might conclude that the expected positive relationship does exist. By setting and meeting goals through several periods the subordinate presumably practices a process of improvement; and this Should enhance his promotability rating (the second component of the SER).2 The positive relationship found between goal setting and the promotability rating is the only relationship in this study which suggests a possible positive effect of goal set- ting. Even this finding is limited by the fact that the 1The importance of the superior's influence upon the subordinate's behavior, at the foreman level at least, has been documented by Donald C. Pelz in "Influence: A Key to Effective Leadership in the First-Line Supervisor," Personnel, 1952, Vol. 29, pages 209-217. 2The researcher recognizes a limitation of the number of highly promotable managers in a total company; i.e., even given great growth of the company and many executives nearing retirement age, there are only limited numbers of vice-presidencies and other top positions. However, this limitation does not preclude a given superior from having significantly more than his Share of promotable subordinate managers. In fact, some students of executive development have discovered certain managers who had attained only fairly low organization levels themselves who nevertheless consistently trained young men for top-level positions. 1A8 relationship held only with the superior's GSI and subordi- nate's GSI, and not with the pair's GSI. Second, as a result of correlating goal setting with performance ratings, one might conclude that no relationship exists between the two variables. Again such a conclusion would tend to contraindicate claims made by goal-setting advocates. Several advocates argue that many managers do not have a clear idea of what results the boss expects and further that goal-setting efforts can remedy this lack. Once remedied, the subordinate presumably can perform better; and this better performance should Show up in his superior's rating of his current performance. If goal-setting efforts do not improve the present performance of the subordinate, managers may again wish to either redesign or de-emphasize these goal-setting efforts. The results of correlating the GSI with the perform- ance rating might also be explained in terms of intervening variables. For example, the subordinate's level of aspira- tion may be a factor. Suppose that initially a superior— subordinate pair is ppp_practicing goal setting to a large extent and the subordinate's aspiration level is low (where "low" is taken to mean that, if the superior was aware of this aspiration level, he would find it unsatis- factory). Now suppose the pair begins practicing a higher level of goal setting with no change in the subordinate's 1A9 aspiration level.l Because of the goal—setting interaction the superior may come to comprehend more fully how low the subordinate's aSpiration level is and for this reason rate the subordinate's current performance lower than before the increased goal setting. This suggests that a future hypothesis might read: Given a high aspiration level of the subordinate ("high" in the eyes of the superior), the extent of goal setting is positively correlated with the superior's ratings of the subordinate's current performance. The researcher notes in passing a serious oversimplification found in most Of the writing about goal setting; namely, the implicit assumption that those who are to set goals for their own work have high aspiration levels.2 Possible Explanations of the Findings of Hypothesis 5, Which Tests the Correlations Between Job Understand- ing_and Ratings From the evidence on Hypothesis 5, one might conclude that no relationship exists between job understanding and the ratings of subordinate effectiveness. This conclusion would stand in opposition to that reached by Harrison based on his research at the worker level (summarized in Chapter 1, page 26. lThe subordinate's aspiration level may be independent of goal-setting behavior. 2McGregor touches upon the question of tOp managers' assumptions about levels of aspiration when he relates the incident of the man who was promoted against his wishes (McGregor, op. cit., pages 50-51). 150 On the other hand, one might hypothesize intervening variables to eXplain the results of testing Hypothesis 5. For example, it may well be that the subordinate's under- standing of his superior's expectations is only the first step toward improved performance, and that the pair must also come to ggrgp_about the expectations. Suppose one accepts the working assumption that the measures are adequately reliable. Then, in all three areas of correlation, a choice explaining the nine cases of lack of correlation remains open: Either the hypothesized relationships do not exist, or the relationships are com— plicated by intervening variables. Any such intervening variables in any of the three areas would suggest need for further research, for which Specific suggestions appear below. Complexities Surrounding Goal-SettingrBehavior The low coefficients of correlation found in testing Hypothesis 3, the present performance but not the promot— ability finding of Hypothesis A, and Hypothesis 5 suggest rather strongly that the relationship between goal setting and other vital areas may not be so simple and direct as is commonly assumed. The evidence neither covers a suffi- cient breadth of variables nor is precise enough to demon- strate conclusively that goal-setting efforts are not paying off. However, this thesis at least suggests the wisdom of a 151 very careful approach to goal setting since goal—setting behavior stands in a complex relationship to other organiza- tional variables. ‘ This complex relationship Should not be very surprising since researchers have often found great complexity where relationships had appeared to be obvious. For example, psychologists have found that the concept of "mechanical ability" is not unidimensional as common sense might sug- gest, but rather that a given person may possess a high aptitude for some types of mechanical activity but low apti- tude for others. Similarly, researchers have encountered a very complex relationship between two matters which once seemed obvious, workers' morale and productivity. At the more relevant level of research into superior- subordinate interaction, General Electric researchers1 found that a number of logically expected relationships did not exist. Here are two striking examples of the General Electric findings: (1) Praise had little effect on performance or attitudes. (2) "Participation" had little effect on goal achievement.2 1E. Kay, J. R. P. French, Jr., and H. H. Meyer, A Study of the Performance Appraisal Interview (New York: Behavioral Research Service, General Electric Company, 1962). 2Ibid., p. 25. 152 In goal setting, common sense suggests that explicitly agreed-upon goals with specific times of accomplishment lead to greater improvement in performance than would occur with— out such goals. .And, in fact, General Electric researchers found such a relationship (reported in Chapter 1, p. 11). These researchers not only found many components of goal setting (See Chapter 1, p. 1A), but also a complicated structure of relationships between such presently relevant matters as goal setting, performance appraisal, participation in planning, and superior's criticism of subordinate's per- formance, to name a few (see Chapter 1, pp. 11-15 and Chapter 2, pp. 52, 53, and 75). The present research attempted to extend across several organizations the vari- ables identified at General Electric and other individual companies. Working in several organizations makes the relationships even more complex.1 Implications for Future Research On Goal Setting The findings in this thesis suggest value to research along two lines: (1) research to develop more reliable measures of goal setting and related measures such as the Job Perception Index and (2) further research to unravel the complex relationships between goal—setting behavior and other significant organizational relationships. The positive lResearch findings across organizations hold the promise of generalizing more widely than do research findings within a single organization. 153 relationship found between goal setting and promotability ratings, if confirmed in future research, has important implications for management theory. Future researchers may find the GSI helpful in develop— ing more reliable measures of goal setting. First and most obvious, the basic method could be employed with variations in the exact procedure used. For example, subjects might check only a certain number of statements with which they agree most strongly. Second, a narrower range of subject matter might produce a more reliable measure of goal setting. Future researchers could utilize the results of the judging reported in Chapter 3 but design a new measure of goal setting by eliminating one or more of the content categories befgre deriving the final scale. A factor analysis could prove valuable. Each factor might become the basis for a separate measure of an impor- tant and independent aspect of goal-setting behavior. A promising application of the G81 or other measure of goal-setting behavior is to administer the measure to a larger number of subjects than in the present study and then perform sub-group analysis of the resulting data. Important information may result with respect to the scores of: women vs. men; line vs. staff; subjects in different companies. In addition, the general wording of the GSI suggests it can be employed in non-business organizations. 15A Future researchers may develop new measures of the possible effects of goal—setting behavior in addition to improving existing measures. Among the new measures the work of various researchers in organizational effectiveness is promising. That is, goal—setting researchers could borrow various measures of organizational effectiveness as dependent variables, keeping the extent of goal setting as independent. The Job Perception Index, borrowed for this thesis from General Electric, is an example Of an existing measure which can be improved. A first step toward increas- ing the generality of this JPI might be to develop a new deck of cards following the same format as the General Electric researchers followed, except in a different company setting. Then both the new and original decks could be administered for a comparison of reliabilities. In the second area of research, that of unraveling complex relationships, the low correlations between variables reported in this thesis provide challenging questions for future researchers. The researcher has suggested the possibility of intervening variables and has presented examples of them that could be worth explaining. Final Statement The findings of this thesis research show goal-setting behavior to be conceptually complex and difficult to measure. Nevertheless, the measurement of goal setting so far explained holds much promise of contributing to the untangling of the 155 intricate relationships among the many variables relevant to organizational functioning. The two positive relationships found between goal-setting efforts and promotability, if confirmed by future investigation, may point a research- supported way toward better illumination of one of the many dark corners in management theory. At the same time the lack of significant positive relationships in most areas where these positive relationships Should occur provides challenging questions for future research. This research at least represents a small beginning in seeing some of the factors involved in understanding goal setting and other logically related management activities. BIBLIOGRAPHY 156 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Chesire, Leone, Saffir, Milton, and Thurstone, L. L. ComputingDiagrams for the Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1933. Drucker, Peter F. Managing For Results: Economic Tasks and Risk-Taking Decisions. New York: Harper and 'Row, Publishers, 196A. Drucker, Peter F. The Practice of Mana ement. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1 5A. Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. Ath ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1965. Kellogg, Marion. What to Do About Performance Appraisal. New York: American Management Association, 1965. Likert, Rensis. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill Book COmpany, 1961. McConkey, Dale D. How to Manage by Results. New York: American Management Association, 1965. McGregor, Douglas. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960. Maier, N. R. F., L. R. Hoffman, J. J. Hooven, and W. H. Read. Superior-Subordinate Communication in Management, AMA Research Study-52. New York: American Management Association, 1961. Miller, Ernest C.‘ Objectives and Standards: An Approach to Standards and Control- New YOrk: American Management Association, 1966: Odiorne, George S. Management by Objectives: A System of Managerial Leadership. New York: Pitman Publishing Corporation, 1965. 157 158 Raia, Anthony P. "A Case Study of the Effects of Goal- Setting and Self-Control Om Organization Performance," Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, U.C.L.A., 1963. Rowland, Virgil. Managerial Performance Standards. New York: American Management Association, 1960. Sayles, Leonard R. Managerial Behavior. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co., 196A. Schleh, Edward C. Management by Results: The Dynamics of Profitable Management. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1961. Thurstone, L. L., and Chave, E. J. The Meapprement of Attitude. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1929. Tiffin, Joseph, and McCormick, Ernest J. Industrial Psychology. Ath ed. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1958. Valentine, Raymond F. Performance Objectives for Managers. New York: American Management Association, 1966. Zander, Alvin, ed. Performanpe Appraisals: Effects on Employees and Tfieir Performance. Ann Arbor, Mich.: The Foundation for Research on Human Behavior, 196A. Articles and Company Publications Behavioral Research Service, General Electric Company, "Principles and Practices of Work Planning and Performance Appraisal," 1963. Dearden, John. "Limits on Decentralized Profit Responsi- bility," Harvard Business Review, XV, No. A (July-August, 1962), 81-89. Duffendack, Stanley C. "The Job Perception Index: Managers Manual." Individual Development Methods Service, General Electric Company, June 25, 1965. (Mimeographed.) Dunlap, J. W., and Kroll, A. "Observations on the Method- ology in Attitude Scales," Journal of Social Psychology, x (1939). A75-A87. 159 Harrison, Roger L. "Workers' Perceptions and Job Success," Personnel Psychology, XII (1959), 619-625. Kay, Emanuel, et al. "A Study of the Performance Appraisal Interview.“ Behavioral Research Service, General Electric Company, March, 1962. Kay, Emanuel and Roy Hastman. "An Evaluation of Work Planning and Goal Setting Discussions." Behavioral Research Service, General Electric Company, March, 1966. Kellogg, Marion S. "New Angles in Appraisal," in Thomas L. Whisler and Shirley F. Harper, editors, Performance Appraisal: Research and Practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1962, pp. 88-92. Likert, Rensis. "Motivational Approach to Management Development," Harvard Business Review, XXVII, No. A (July-August, 1959), 75-82. Likert, Rensis. "New Patterns of Sales Management," Michigan Business Papers, No. 37, "Changing Per- spectives in Marketing Management." Ann Arbor, Mich.: Bureau of Business Research, Graduate School of6Business Administration, University of Michigan, 19 2. McClelland, David C. "Achievement Motivation Can Be DevelOped," Harvard Business Review, XVII, No. 6 (November—December, 1965), 6—16, 20-2A, 178. McNair, Malcolm, Jr. "The American Standard Approach," from a longer article, "Appraisal of Managers and Management Development," Management Record, XXIII, No. 3 (March, 1961), 8-17. Meyer, Herbert, French, John R. P., Jr., and Kay, Emanuel. "Split Roles in Performance Appraisal," Harvard Business Review, XVIII, No. l (January-February, 1965), 123 ff. Morton, R. B., et al. "An Experiment in Performance Appraisal and Review," Journal of the American Society of Training Directors, XV, No. 5 (May, 1961), 19-27. Payne, Bruce. "How to Set Realistic Profit Goals," Harvard Business Review, XXXVI, No. 5 (September-October, 1958), 87-95. 160 Raia, Anthony P. "A Second Look at Management Goals and Controls," California Management Review, VII, No. A (Summer, 1966), A9-58. Raia, Anthony P. "Goal Setting and Self-Control: An Empirical Study at Purex Corp. Ltd.," Journal of Management Studies, II, No. 1 (February, 1965), 34-53- Seashore, Robert H., and Hevner, Kate. "A Time—Saving Device for the Construction of Attitude Scales," Journal of Social Psychology, IV (1933), 366-372. Seashore, Stanley E. "Criteria of Organizational Effec— téveness," Michigan Business Review (July, 1965), 2 -30. Wikstrom, Walter S. "Management by Objectives gr Appraisal by Results," Conference Board Record (July, 1966). Wilkerson, C. David. "A Results-Oriented Development Plan," The Conference Board Record (March, 1966), AO-A5. APPENDICES 161 APPENDIX A THE 118 STATEMENTS 162 APPENDIX A THE 118 STATEMENTS Name of Judge MANAGERS' STATEMENTS Goal setting for individual managers is a continuing process at my organization level. My boss acts as though he never heard of goal setting for individual managers. I have verifiable work goals; I mean, at the date agreed upon, my boss can tell readily how close I've come to accomplishing my goals. My boss thinks it is important to discuss the problems of my Job with me, but we don't do enough of it. I have a fairly clear idea of what's par or normal performance in my Job, but it could be clearer. It's only when there's an emergency "upstairs" that I get any indication how I'm doing, and then it's usually negative. My boss has a written copy of my work goals for this period, and he refers to it during the period. I have a written list of work goals, but I don't remember exactly what they are. Sometimes my boss asks me Just how I plan to reach my work goals, and sometimes he doesn't. 163 10. ll. l2. 13. 1a. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 164 I'm lucky if I get any hint from any of the higher managers how well I'm doing my job. Most of the time, but not always, salary increases are based on improve- ment in individual performance. When the boss tells us about the new goals and plans for his unit, he care- fully takes into account the goals that were set for last month or last quarter. My boss is interested in my development, and views setting work goals as a step in the right direction. My boss' idea of par for my Job is ridiculous. My boss feels uncomfortable about pin— ning me down on target dates and similar matters. At my organization level we don't bother meeting at regular times to set goals for each individual manager, but we are continually thinking about these individual goals. Sometimes my boss understands how much my performance depends on things I can't control, and sometimes he doesn't understand. My boss won't give me time off for any kind of personal deveIOpment or executive develOpment, unless it's obviously related to my current work. My boss and I work together to deter- mine my standards of performance, and I feel he really considers my point of view. If my boss and I could agree more fully what levels of performance are reasonable for my job, we could set more useful work goals. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 165 At my organization level we give more attention to the goals of my immediate superior's work group than we do to each individual's goals. My boss and I discuss what activities he_ must perform in order that I_can carry out my responsibilities. There doesn't seem to be any logic to the way salary increases are given in this company. My work is too complex to express in terms of standards of performance. Salary action is tied too closely to goal attainment, with the result that my pay fluctuates too much because of factors outside my control. My boss and I have agreed on specific things I need to do to improve myself (such as night school, special assignments, conferences, etc.). Sometimes when my boss and I talk about my performance, I feel like a defendant on trial. When my boss and I talk about my work goals, I find myself maneuvering for easy goals, since my salary depends on how well I reach these goals. My boss and I talk less about what I need to accomplish than about various other matters, such as how much time I'll need. My boss usually expects me to complete an assignment by an exact date. My boss is somewhat permissive; he encourages me to set some, but not all, the goals for my own work. With all the things my boss expects me to be doing, I just don't know what he considers most important right now. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. Al. A2. “3. an. 166 My performance could be expressed fairly well in numbers, ratios, or percentages, but my boss and I haven't got around to working it out yet. My boss might discuss my career plans with me, but he'd view it as more or less outside his responsibility. When things go wrong, sometimes I know exactly what aSpect of my perform— ance was not up to par, and sometimes I don't. The main thing I have to answer to my boss for is my attainment of the goals we agreed upon. When my boss holds a meeting of his immediate subordinates, in his enthu- siasm for working on the big picture, he forgets the individual goals that have been worked out for each of us. My boss and I have talked about how I might get a promotion, but the dis- cussion has never been very Specific. I get formal feedback that adequately covers my goals and responsibilities. My boss is very understanding about extenuating circumstances which cause me to fall short of our expectations. My boss really wants all of us at my level to understand the goals of his organizational unit and how this unit fits into the total company picture. My boss will sit down and talk about my long-term career goals if I push him hard enough. On the whole I get feedback about my performance in plenty of time to use it. I'm not satisfied if I merely meet the low level of work goals which seems to satisfy my boss. '45. L16. 147. 148. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 5A. 55. 56. 167 My boss seldom praises me when I've got praise coming. The way my boss handles the discussion of my weaknesses with me, anyone in my position couldn't help get a little defensive. I'm not too clear about my immediate superior's work goals. My boss and I find that it's best not to talk about my goal achievement and my salary at the same meeting. Without the feedback I get from official channels, my performance might suffer somewhat, but not too much. At my organization level, about equal percentage increases in salary generally go to everybody whenever increases are passed out. After my boss and I have gone to the trouble of agreeing on my work goals, then he comes around and interferes before I've had a chance to prove myself. At my organization level, individual rewards depend somewhat on luck but more on performance. I've got so many goals I have trouble keeping track of them all. Although my boss has a pretty good idea of what my goals ought to be, he lets me state them first and then we work them out. There are too many times when I don't really know what the boss expects of me. Once my boss and I agree on my goals, I can't get them changed, no matter what. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 6A. 65. 66. 67. 168 Every so many months my boss and I sit down and decide how much I'm supposed to accomplish by Specific dates in the future. When these dates actually arrive, we talk about how I did and what I should be shooting for during the next time period. My boss doesn't care whether or not we've ever set goals for my work, just as long as I get the work done that he's counting on me to do. At my organization level we're lucky if we have plans for tomorrow, let alone next week or next month. There are ways my boss can check whether my performance meets prior expectations, but these ways are not completely effective. A lot of times my boss and I agree on my work goals, but we don't get around to discussing how I'm going to reach them. It's very important, in my job, to meet agreed upon deadlines on time. If I wrote out a list of my work goals and plans for the coming month, I think my boss would find my list apprOpriate, but I can't be entirely sure. My boss and I not only regularly put my work goals into writing, but we also keep them up to date. The only real feedback I get about my performance comes through informal channels. ‘ My boss determines what and how well I should be doing before he talks to me, and very seldom changes his mind about these matters. Unless he's getting unusual pressure from higher management, I don't see much of my boss. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 7A. 75. 76. 77. 169 My boss expects me to do some independent thinking about what I should be doing in my Job. I suppose individual rewards are mostly fair and reasonable at my organizational level, but some politics is involved. Sometimes my boss has to make the final decision about how I should spend my time, but other times we agree. The best managers at my level around here can work out their own plans to meet their goals without a lot of trips to the boss' office. Once in a while when my boss and I talk about my performance, I feel I must stress my successes and "play down" my failures. If I were to put forth Just a little less effort than usual the next six months, this would show up in the rewards I got. I have some measures of my performance in practically every area of my responsibility. I don't see any personal benefit from trying to achieve the higher levels of performance my boss keeps yelling about. My immediate superior should give me more help getting necessary inputs of any and all kinds; because he doesn't, I miss some of my goals and targets each time period. At one time or another my boss and I have talked seriously about what's par performance for my Job and we have come a long way, but we continue to disagree in a few areas, mostly of minor importance. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 170 My boss and those of us at my organiza- tion level all seem to agree that how_ an individual reaches his work goals is his own business. I'm not always exactly sure which one of my special assignments and continuing responsibilities is supposed to be done first. I get some specific feedback about my performance, but I need more. Except for once or twice a year, I get no indication from any of the higher managers about how well I'm doing my Job. Generally, when I encounter a really serious obstacle, my boss and I dis- cuss it and revise my work goals accordingly. The idea of continuing improvement is a way of life at my organization level. If I miss some of my goals, I can plead extenuating circumstances, and my boss usually will let me off the hook. I have some understanding of the objectives of the total company, but I could do a better Job if I knew more. My boss is only mildly concerned about my personal preferences when he and I discuss my work. All too often when my boss tells us about changes he hopes to see around here, he demonstrates he doesn't know much about what's going on. If I asked my boss what my ideal set of work goals should be for the coming period, he'd probably encourage me to work this out myself rather than Just tell me. X 89. X 90 X 91 X 92 X 93. X 94. X 95. X 96. X 97. X 98. X 99. X 100. 171 Now and then when profitable new areas of responsibility come up for me, my boss and I don't catch them in time. My boss doesn't seem to realize that many of my Operating problems can't be anticipated in the planning stages. . >As long as I'm getting expected results, my boss usually won't bug me. Regardless of how well I've been setting goals and meeting them, my boss always seems to be "looking over my shoulder." My boss will not talk to me about my career plans and personal goals, even if I bring up the subject. Sometimes the boss acts as though we all share his personal goals and desires and we don't have any of our own. I don't know what my boss would consider a "good Job" on the work I've been doing for the past two weeks. For me to get ahead, pleasing my boss is at least as important as tangible accomplishments. My boss seems too busy with current problems to talk with me about my career plans. I have some understanding of what it takes for me to get a raise. My boss tries not to discuss my salary during the same meeting we talk about my work goals and progress toward goals, but this separation Just doesn't work. If my boss and I took time out to sit down and talk things over more frequently we might not get caught short as much as we do. 101. 102. 103. 10A. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 172 Achieving the results my boss expects often requires more of his support than I can get. My performance on the job would improve if my boss took more account of my long—term personal or life goals. Sometimes my boss is too lenient with me about meeting my goals, and I'm not really held accountable for much of anything. Sometimes my boss knows enough about the work I do to make sound Judgments about my performance and salary, and sometimes he doesn't. With only the information I get from the boss and other official channels, I wouldn't have any idea how to improve my performance. Sometimes my boss asks me Just how I plan to reach my work goals, and sometimes he doesn't. My boss seems to have only a vague idea of what I'm doing most of the time. My boss gives me some ideas, but I need more help from him to decide how to correct my performance deficiencies. My boss and those of us at my organiza- tion level do not plan very much. Mostly, we play everything "by ear." I don't know what this year's goals for the total company are. My boss definitely sets the limits on what my goals should be, but within those limits he lets me set my own goals. Some things my boss has said convince me he isn't at all aware of the obstacles I face. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 173 My boss and I have worked out effective ways to measure some areas of my per- formance which once seemed unmeasurable. My boss out and out tells me what my work goals are to be for the coming time period, no matter what I think they should be. The only reason my boss tells me how I stand is because the company requires it. Not only do my boss and I work out my goals at regular goal-setting time, but he gives me every chance to put in my two cents between goal-setting sessions. Much of the information I get about my performance is objective and not just subjective, and this helps. There is a neat balance here between giving a man at my level his preferences and what the company needs doing. Now please go back and make sure that you have circled one letter for each item. COMMENTS: APPENDIX B SCALE VALUES, Q VALUES, AND X JUDGMENTS OF THE 118 STATEMENTS 17A 175 Scale values, Q values, and X Judgments of the 118 statements. Statement Scale Q X Number Value Value Judgments l. 5.8 4.2 2 2. 0.A 1.6 0 6.1 1.2 O A. 2.7 .3. 3 5. 3.2 2.“ O 6. 0.3 1.2 0 7. 5.6 1.6 0 8. 2.3 2.0 0 9. 3.3 1.8 l 10. 0.2 1.0 l 11. A.2 2.9 U 12. 5.3 1.6 1 13. 5.7 1.2 0 14. 0.9 l.“ A 15. 1.9 .6 2 16. 2.3 2.7 1 17. 2.3 1.8 2 18. 3.3 2.2 5 19. 6.2 2.2 0 20. 3.9 2.6 2 21. 3.1 2.1 O 22. 5.8 3.4 1 23. 0.2 1.2 5 2A. 0.5 0.8 2 25. 3.“ 3.2 2 26. A.5 1.9 2 27. 1.5 2.2 2 ' 28. 1.9 3.2 O 29. 2.1 2.1 0 30. “.5 1.8 2 Statement Scale Q X Number Value Value Judgments 31. A.5 2.2 1 32. 1.7 1.0 0 33. 1.3 2.0 0 3A. 1.“ 1.A 3 35. 2.A 2.1 1 36. 5.9 2.8 O 37. 2.8 2.5 0 38. 1.8 2.2 3 39. 5.8 1.8 0 HO. A.5 2.1 1 M1. 6.3 2.2 1 A2. 3.3 1.9 3 '43. 5.5 1.1: 0 AA. “.5 1.9 2 US. 1.8 3.0 A H6. 1.7 1.3 2 A7 1.9 2.“ 0 N8. A.2 3.3 U DO. 3.1 2.0 1 50 0.9 1.0 1 51. 1.6 1.u 0 52. A.1 2.“ 1 53 1.9 1.5 0 5“. 5.9 1.2 0 55. 1.” 0.8 O 56. 2.1 1.7 0 57. 6.7 1.“ 0 58 1.6 2.H 0 59. 0.1 0.6 0 60. 2.8 2.1 0 F“ ' “‘f“""”'f*f1~ ..I 176 Statement Scale Q X Statement Scale Q X Number Value Value Judgments Number Value Value Judgments 61. 3.7 1.8 0 91. 5.0 2.2 O 62. 5.3 2.6 l 92. 1.5 1.5 1 63. 3.3 2.3 0 93. 0.“ 2.6 3 614. 6.3 1 u o 914. 1.7 1.6 0 65. 1.5 1.0 y o 95. 0.7 3.0 1 66. 1.9 2.1 0 96. 1.1 1.6 “ 67. 1.5 2.6 6 97. 1.3 2.2 “ 68. 5.0 1.9 l 98. 3 2.3 2 69. 3.1 2.8 “ 99. 3.2 1.8 2 70. A.“ 2.8 1 100. 1.7 1.7 O .71. 5.8 2 “ O 101. 2.5 1.6 2 72. 2.8 1.9 l 102. 2.8 2.6 2 73. 5.3 2.6 0 103. 1.5 ' l.“ 0 7“. 5.8 l.“ O 10“. 2.6 1.7 O 75. 1.0 1.8 l 105. 1.0 1.6 0 76. ' 2.6 2.6 3 106. 3.7 1.3 0 77. “.8 1.2 1 " 107. 1.1 1.0 0 78. “.9 3.7 0 108. 2.3 1.8 0 79. 5.6 2.1 1 109. 0.3 1.“ 0 80. 3.1 2.0 1 110. 1.“ 2.0 2 81. 2.3 1.9 l 111. 5.0 1.7 0 82. 5 3 1.6 0 112. 1.6 1.5 1 83. 6 l 1.2 2 113. 5.7 1.0 O 8“. 2.0 2.6 o ' 11u. 2.2 2 o 85. 3.3 2.3 2 115. 1.6 1.3 l ‘86. 2.1 2.3 3 116. 6.2 1.2 O 87. 1.1 1.0 3 I 117. 5. l.“ 1 88. “.9 2.0 O 118. 5.8 1.8 2 89. 2.3 1 5 1 90. 2.“ 1.6 2 APPENDIX C GOAL-SETTING STATEMENTS BY LEVEL OF GOAL SETTING 177 10. l“. 23. 2“. 50. 59. 93. 95. 109. LEVEL G (0—1) (Lowest Level) My boss acts as though he never heard of goal setting for individual managers. It's only when there's an emergency "upstairs" that I get any indication how I'm doing, and then it's usually negative. I'm lucky if I get any hint from any of the higher managers how well I'm doing my Job. My boss' idea of par for my Job is ridiculous. There doesn't seem to be any logic to the way salary increases are given in this company. My work is too complex to express in terms of standards of performance. At my organization level, about equal percentage increases in salary generally go to everybody whenever increases are passed out. At my organization level we're lucky if we have plans for tomorrow, let alone next week or next month. My boss will not talk to me about my career plans and personal goals, even if I bring up the subject. I don't know what my boss would consider a "good job" on the work I've been doing for the past two weeks. My boss and those of us at my organization level do not plan very much. Mostly, we play everything "by ear." 178 15. 27. 28. 32. 33. 3“. 38. “5. “6. “7. 51. 53. 55. 58. 179 LEVEL F (1—2) My boss feels uncomfortable about pinning me down on target dates and similar matters. Sometimes when my boss and I talk about my performance, I feel like a defendant on trial. When my boss and I talk about my work goals, I find myself maneuvering for easy goals, since my salary depends on how well I reach these goals. With all the things my boss eXpects me to be doing, I just don't know what he considers most important right now. My performance could be expressed fairly well in numbers, ratios, or percentages, but my boss and I haven't got around to working it out yet. My boss might discuss my career plans with me, but he'd view it as more or less outside his responsibility. My boss and I have talked about how I might get a promotion, but the discussion has never been very specific. My boss seldom praises me when I've got praise coming. The way my boss handles the discussion of my weaknesses with me, anyone in my position couldn't help get a little defensive. I'm not too clear about my immediate superior's work goals. After my boss and I have gone to the trouble of agreeing on my work goals, then he comes around and interferes before I've had a chance to prove myself. I've got so many goals I have trouble keeping track of them all. There are too many times when I don't really know what the boss expects of me. My boss doesn't care whether or not we've ever set goals for my work, Just as long as I get the work done that he's counting on me to do. 65. 66. 67. 75. 87. 92. 9“. 96. 97. 100. 103. 105. 107. 110. 180 The only real feedback I get about my performance comes through informal channels. My boss determines what and how well I should be doing before he talks to me, and very seldom changes his mind about these matters. Unless he's getting unusual pressure from higher management, I don't see much of my boss. I don't see any personal benefit from trying to achieve the higher levels of performance my boss keeps yelling about. All too often when my boss tells us about changes he hopes to see around here, he demonstrates he doesn't know much about what's going on. Regardless of how well I've been setting goals and meeting them, my boss always seems to be "looking over my shoulder." Sometimes the boss acts as though we all share his personal goals and desires and we don't have any of our own. For me to get ahead, pleasing my boss is at least as important as tangible accomplishments. My boss seems too busy with current problems to talk with me about my career plans. If my boss and I took time out to sit down and talk things over more frequently, we might not get caught short as much as we do. Sometimes my boss is too lenient with me about meeting my goals, and I'm not really held accountable for much of anything. With only the information I get from the boss and other official channels, I wouldn't have any idea how to improve my performance. My boss seems to have only a vague idea of what I'm doing most of the time. I don't know what this year's goals for the total company are. 181 112. Some things my boss has said convince me he isn't at all aware of the obstacles I face. 115. The only reason my boss tells me how I stand is because the company requires it. 16. 17. 29. 35. 37. 56. 60. 72. 76. 81. 182 LEVEL E (2-3) My boss thinks it is important to discuss the problems of my Job with me, but we don't do enough of it. I have a written list of work goals, but I don't remember exactly what they are. At my organization level we don't bother meeting at regular times to set goals for each individual manager, but we are continually thinking about these individual goals. Sometimes my boss understands how much my performance depends on things I can't control, and sometimes he doesn't understand. My boss and I talk less about what I need to accomplish than about various other matters, such as how much time I'll need. When things go wrong, sometimes I know exactly what aSpect of my performance was not up to par, and sometimes I don't. When my boss holds a meeting of his immediate subordi— nates, in his enthusiasm for working on the big picture, he forgets the individual goals that have been worked out for each of us. Once my boss and I agree on my goals, I can't get them changed, no matter what. There are ways my boss can check whether my perform— ance meets prior expectations, but these ways are not completely effective. Once in a while when my boss and I talk about my performance, I feel I must stress my successes and "play down" my failures. My immediate superior should give me more help getting necessary inputs of any and all kinds; because he doesn't, I miss some of my goals and targets each time period. Except for once or twice a year, I get no indication from any of the higher managers about how well I'm doing my job. 82. 86. 89. 90. 101. 102. 10“. 108. 11“. 183 If I miss some of my goals, I can plead extenuating circumstances, and my boss usually will let me off the hook. My boss is only mildly concerned about my personal preferences when he and I discuss my work. Now and then when profitable new areas of responsibil— ity come up for me, my boss and I don't catch them in time. My boss doesn't seem to realize that many of my oper— ating problems can't be anticipated in the planning stages. Achieving the results my boss expects often requires more of his support than I can get. My performance on the Job would improve if my boss took more account of my long-term personal or life goals. Sometimes my boss knows enough about the work I do to make sound judgments about my performance and salary, and sometimes he doesn't. My boss gives me some ideas, but I need more help from him to decide how to correct my performance deficiencies. My boss out and out tells me what my work goals are to be for the coming time period, no matter what I think they should be. 18. 20. 21. 25. “2. “9. 61. 63. 69. 80. 85. 98. 18“ LEVEL D (3-“) (Middle Level) I have a fairly clear idea of what's par or normal performance in my job, but it could be clearer. Sometimes my boss asks me just how I plan to reach my work goals, and sometimes he doesn't. My boss won't give me time off for any kind of per— sonal development or executive development, unless it's obviously related to my current work. If my boss and I could agree more fully what levels of performance are reasonable for my Job, we could set more useful work goals. At my organization level we give more attention to the goals of my immediate superior's work group than we do to each individual's goals. Salary action is tied too closely to goal attainment, with the result that my pay fluctuates too much be— cause of factors outside my control. My boss will sit down and talk about my long-term career goals if I push him hard enough. Without the feedback I get from official channels, my performance might suffer somewhat, but not too much. A lot of times my boss and I agree on my work goals, but we don't get around to discussing how I'm going to reach them. If I wrote out a list of my work goals and plans for the coming month, I think my boss would find my list appropriate, but I can't be entirely sure. I suppose individual rewards are mostly fair and reasonable at my organizational level, but some politics is involved. I get some specific feedback about my performance, but I need more. I have some understanding of the objectives of the total company, but I could do a better job if I knew more. I have some understanding of what it takes for me to get a raise. 99. 185 My boss tries not to discuss my salary during the same meeting we talk about my work goals and progress toward goals, but this separation just doesn't work. Sometimes my boss asks me Just how I plan to reach my work goals, and sometimes he doesn't. 11. 26. 30. 31. “0. ““. “8. 52. 70. 77. 78. 88. 186 LEVEL 0 (4—5) Most of the time, but not always, salary increases are based on improvement in individual performance. My boss and I have agreed on specific things I need to do to improve myself (such as night school, special assignments, conferences, etc.). My boss usually expects me to complete an assignment by an exact date. My boss is somewhat permissive; he encourages me to set some, but not all, the goals for my own work. My boss is very understanding about extenuating cir- cumstances which cause me to fall short of our expectations. I'm not satisfied if I merely meet the low level of work goals which seems to satisfy my boss. My boss and I find that it's best not to talk about my goal achievement and my salary at the same meeting. At my organization level, individual rewards depend somewhat on luck but more on performance. Sometimes my boss has to make the final decision about how I should spend my time, but other times we agree. At one time or another my boss and I have talked seriously about what's par performance for my Job and we have come a long way, but we continue to disagree in a few areas, mostly of minor importance. My boss and those of us at my organization level all seem to agree that how an individual reaches his work goals is his own business. If I asked my boss what my ideal set of work goals should be for the coming period, he'd probably encourage me to work this out myself rather than just tell me. 12. 13. 22. 36. 39. “3. 5“. 62. 68. 71. 73. 7“. 79- 187 LEVEL B (5-6) Goal setting for individual managers is a continuing process at my organization level. My boss has a written c0py of my work goals for this period, and he refers to it during the period. When the boss tells us about the new goals and plans for his unit, he carefully takes into account the goals that were set for last month or last quarter. My boss is interested in my development, and views setting work goals as a step in the right direction. :- _ _..__.....—-—-. .o 'f My boss and I discuss what activities he_must perform in order that I can carry out my responsibilities. The main thing I have to answer to my boss for is my attainment of the goals we agreed upon. I get formal feedback that adequately covers my goals and responsibilities. On the whole I get feedback about my performance in plenty of time to use it. Although my boss has a pretty good idea of what my goals ought to be, he lets me state them first and then we work them out. It's very important, in my job, to meet agreed upon deadlines on time. My boss eXpects me to do some independent thinking about what I should be doing in my job. The best managers at my level around here can work out their own plans to meet their goals without a lot of trips to the boss' office. If I were to put forth just a little less effort than usual the next six months, this would show up in the rewards I got. I have some measures of my performance in practically every area of my responsibility. I'm not always exactly sure which one of my special assignments and continuing responsibilities is supposed to be done first. 82. 91. 111. 113. 117. 118. 188 Generally, when I encounter a really serious obstacle, my boss and I discuss it and revise my work goals accordingly. As long as I'm getting expected results, my boss usually won't bug me. My boss definitely sets the limits on what my goals should be, but within those limits he lets me set my own goals. My boss and I have worked out effective ways to measure some areas of my performance which once seemed unmeasurable. Much of the information I get about my performance is objective and not just subjective, and this helps. There is a neat balance here between giving a man at my level his preferences and what the company needs doing. 19. “l. 57. 6“. 83. 116 . 189 LEVEL A (6—7) (Highest Level) I have verifiable work goals; I mean, at the date agreed upon, my boss can tell readily how close I've come to accomplishing my goals. My boss and I work together to determine my standards of performance and I feel he really considers my point of View. My boss really wants all of us at my level to under- stand the goals of his organizational unit and how this unit fits into the total company picture. Every so many months my boss and I sit down and decide how much I'm supposed to accomplish by specific dates in the future. When these dates actually arrive, we talk about how I did and what I should be shooting for during the next time period. My boss and I not only regularly put my work goals into writing, but we also keep them up to date. The idea of continuing improvement is a way of life at my organization level. Not only do my boss and I work out my goals at regular goal-setting time, but he gives me every chance to put in my two cents between goal-setting sessions. :- -..__--.__.~ 1 APPENDIX D THE 118 STATEMENTS, ORGANIZED BY CONTENT CATEGORIES 190 12. 16. 21. 29. 30. 32. 37. “7. 51. I. GOAL CHARACTERISTICS Goal setting for individual managers is a continuing process at my organization level. My boss acts as though he never heard of goal setting for individual managers. I have a written list of work goals, but I don't remember exactly exactly what they are. When the boss tells us about the new goals and plans for his unit, he carefully takes into account the goals that were set for last month or last quarter. At my organization level we don't bother meeting at regular times to set goals for each individual manager, but we are continually thinking about these individual goals. At my organization level we give more attention to the goals of my immediate superior's work group than we do to each individual's goals. My boss and I talk less about what I need to accomplish than about various other matters, such as how much time I'll need. My boss usually eXpects me to complete an assignment by an exact date. With all the things my boss expects me to be doing, I Just don't know what he considers most important right now. When my boss holds a meeting of his immediate sub- ordinates, in his enthusiasm for working on the big picture, he forgets the individual goals that have been worked out for each of us. I'm not too clear about my immediate superior's work goals. After my boss and I have gone to the trouble of agreeing on my work goals, then he comes around and interferes before I've had a chance to prove myself. 191 r...— 1L. ...Aahlv‘ - A 57. 59. 63. 6“. 79. 83. 87. 89. 91. 92. 100. 107. 109. 192 Every so many months my boss and I sit down and decide how much I'm supposed to accomplish by specific dates in the future. When these dates actually arrive, we talk about how I did and what I should be shooting for during the next time period. At my organization level we're lucky if we have plans for tomorrow, let alone next week or next month. If I wrote out a list of my work goals and plans for the coming month, I think my boss would find my list appropriate, but I can't be entirely sure. . My boss and I not only regularly put my work goals 21 into writing, but we also keep them up to date. ; I'm not always exactly sure which one of my special assignments and continuing responsibilities is supposed to be done first. The idea of continuing improvement is a way of life at my organization level. All too often when my boss tells us about changes he hopes to see around here, he demonstrates he doesn't know much about what's going on. Now and then when profitable new areas of responsibility come up for me, my boss and I don't catch them in time. As long as I'm getting expected results, my boss usually won't bug me. Regardless of how well I've been setting goals and meeting them, my boss always seems to be "looking over my shoulder." If my boss and I took time out to sit down and talk things over more frequently, we might not get caught short as much as we do. My boss seems to have only a vague idea of what I'm doing most of the time. My boss and those of us at my organization level do not plan very much. Mostly, we play everything "by ear." My boss thinks it is important to discuss the problems of my Job with me, but we don't do enough of it. 15. “l. ““. 58. 62. 70. 85. 110. 193 My boss feels uncomfortable about pinning me down on target dates and similar matters. My boss really wants all of us at my level to under- stand the goals of his organizational unit and how this unit fits into the total company picture. I'm not satisfied if I merely meet the low level of work goals which seems to satisfy my boss. My boss doesn't care whether or not we've ever set goals for my work, just as long as I get the work done that he's counting on me to do. It's very important, in my job, to meet agreed upon deadlines on time. Sometimes my boss has to make the final decision about how I should spend my time, but other times we agree. I have some understanding of the objectives of the total company, but I could do a better job if I knew more. I don't know what this year's goals for the total company are. 10. 35. 36. 39- “0. “3. “9. 53. 55. 56. 65. 67. 19“ II. FEEDBACK TO SUBORDINATE ABOUT PERFORMANCE AND GOAL ACCOUNTABILITY It's only when there's an emergency "upstairs" that I get any indication how I'm doing, and then it's usually negative. My boss has a written c0py of my work goals for this period, and he refers to it during the period. I'm lucky if I get any hint from any of the higher managers how well I'm doing my Job. When things go wrong, sometimes I know exactly what aspect of my performance was not up to par, and sometimes I don't. The main thing I have to answer to my boss for is my attainment of the goals we agreed upon. I get formal feedback that adequately covers my goals and responsibilities. My boss is very understanding about extenuating cir- cumstances which cause me to fall short of our expectations. On the whole I get feedback about my performance in plenty of time to use it. Without the feedback I get from official channels, my performance might suffer somewhat, but not too much. I've got so many goals I have trouble keeping track of them all. There are too many times when I don't really know what the boss expects of me. Once my boss and I agree on my goals, I can't get them changed, no matter what. The only real feedback I get about my performance comes through informal channels. Unless he's getting unusual pressure from higher management, I don't see much of my boss. 80. 81. 8“. 103. 105. 115. 117. 195 I get some specific feedback about my performance, but I need more. Except for once or twice a year, I get no indication from any of the higher managers about how well I'm doing by Job. If I miss some of my goals, I can plead extenuating circumstances, and my boss usually will let me off the hook. Sometimes my boss is too lenient with me about meeting my goals, and I'm not really held accountable for much of anything. Wigh only the information I get from the boss and other official channels, I wouldn't have any idea how to improve my performance. The only reason my boss tells me how I stand is because the company requires it. Much of the information I get about my performance is objective and not just subjective, and this helps. III. 3. l“. 20. 2“. 33. 60. 7L1. 77. 95. 10“. 113. 196 MEASUREMENT OR VERIFICATION OF HOW GOAL ACHIEVEMENT WAS TO BE MEASURED AND DEGREE TO WHICH GOALS WERE ACHIEVED; STANDARDS; AND PAR I have verifiable work goals; I mean, at the date agreed upon, my boss can tell readily how close I've come to accomplishing my goals. I have a fairly clear idea of what's par or normal performance in my job, but it could be clearer. My boss' idea of par for my job is ridiculous. If my boss and I could agree more fully what levels of performance are reasonable for my job, we could set more useful work goals. Dw'work is too complex to express in terms of standards of performance. My performance could be expressed fairly well in numbers, ratios, or percentages, but my boss and I haven't got around to working it out yet. There are ways my boss can check whether my performance meets prior expectations, but these ways are not com— pletely effective. I have some measures of my performance in practically every area of my responsibility. At one time or another my boss and I have talked seriously about what's par performance for my job and we have come a long way, but we continue to disagree in a few areas, mostly of minor importance. I don't know what my boss would consider a "good Job" on the work I've been doing for the past two weeks. Sometimes my boss knows enough about the work I do to make sound judgments about my performance and salary, and sometimes he doesn't. My boss and I have worked out effective ways to measure some areas of my performance which once seemed unmeasurable. 22. 61. 71. 76. 78. 82. 90. 101. 106. 108. 112. 197 IV. PATHS TO GOALS AND PATH FACILITATION Sometimes my boss asks me just how I plan to reach my work goals, and sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes my boss understands how much my performance depends on things I can't control, and sometimes he doesn't understand. My boss and I discuss what activities hg_must perform 1 in order that I can carry out my responsibilities. A lot of times my boss and I agree on my work goals, 8: but we don't get around to discussing how I'm going to reach them. The best managers at my level around here can work out their own plans to meet their goals without a lot of trips to the boss' office. My immediate superior should give me more help getting necessary inputs of any and all kinds; because he doesn't, I miss some of my goals and targets each time period. My boss and those of us at my organization level all seem to agree that how an individual reaches his work goals is his own business. Generally, when I encounter a really serious obstacle, my boss and I discuss it and revise my work goals accordingly. My boss doesn't seem to realize that many of my operating problems can't be anticipated in the planning stages. Achieving the results my boss expects often requires more of his support then I can get. Sometimes my boss asks me just how I plan to reach my work goals, and sometimes he doesn't. My boss gives me some ideas, but I need more help from him to decide how to correct my performance deficiencies. Some things my boss has said convince me he isn't at all aware of the obstacles I face. 13. 18. 19. 26. 31. 3“. 38. “2. 5“. 66. 68. 86. 88. 198 V. CAREER DEVELOPMENT; PERSONAL PREFERENCES; AND SUBORDINATE AUTONOMY IN GOAL SETTING AND IN RELATED MATTERS My boss is interested in my development, and views setting work goals as a step in the right direction. My boss won't give me time off for any kind of per- sonal development, unless it's obviously related to my current work. My boss and I work together to determine my standards of performance, and I feel he really considers my point of View. My boss and I have agreed on specific things I need to do to improve myself (such as night school, Special assignments, conferences, etc.). My boss is somewhat permissive; he encourages me to set some, but not all, the goals for my own work. My boss might discuss my career plans with me, but he'd view it as more or less outside his responsibility. My boss and I have talked about how I might get a promotion, but the discussion has never been very specific. My boss will Sit down and talk about my long-term career goals 13,1 push him hard enough. Although my boss has a pretty good idea of what my goals ought to be, he lets me state them first and then we work them out. My boss determines what and how well I should be doing before he talks to me, and very seldom changes his mind about these matters. My boss eXpects me to do some independent thinking about what I should be doing in my Job. My boss is only mildly concerned about my personal preferences when he and I discuss my work. If I asked my boss what my ideal set of work goals Should be for the coming period, he'd probably encourage me to work this out myself rather than just tell me. 1'! 5h“ 93. 9“. 97. 98. 102. 111. 11“. 116. 118. 199 My boss will not talk to me about my career plans and personal goals, even if I bring up the subject. Sometimes the boss acts as though we all share his personal goals and desires and we don't have any of our own. My boss seems too busy with current problems to talk with me about my career plans. I have some understanding of what it takes for me to get a raise. My performance on the job would improve if my boss took more account of my long—term personal or life goals. My boss definitely sets the limits on what my goals should be, but within those limits he lets me set my own goals. My boss out and out tells me what my work goals are to be for the coming time period, no matter what I think they should be. Not only do my boss and I work out my goals at regular goal-setting time, but he gives me every chance to put in my two cents between goal-setting sessions. ‘ There is a neat balance here between giving a man at my level his preferences and what the company needs doing. VI. 11. 23. 25. 27. 28. “5. “6. “8. 50. 52. 69. 72. 73. 200 RELATION OF GOAL ATTAINMENT TO INDIVIDUAL REWARDS Most of the time, but not always, salary increases are based on improvement in individual performance. There doesn't seem to be any logic to the way salary increases are given in this company. Salary action is tied too closely to goal attainment, with the result that my pay fluctuates too much be- cause of factors outside my control. Sometimes when my boss and I talk about my performance, I feel like a defendant on trial. ..v~..u.u._m. 2r ‘ 1“th ‘. l' When my boss and I talk about my work goals, I find L4 myself maneuvering for easy goals, since my salary depends on how well I reach these goals. My boss seldom praises me when I've got praise coming. The way my boss handles the discussion of my weak— nesses with me, anyone in my position couldn't help get a little defensive. My boss and I find that it's best not to talk about my goal achievement and my salary at the same meeting. At my organization level, about equal percentage increases in salary generally go to everybody whenever increases are passed out. At my organization level, individual rewards depend somewhat on luck but more on performance. I suppose individual rewards are mostly fair and reasonable at my organizational level, but some politics is involved. Once in a while when my boss and I talk about my performance, I feel I must stress my successes and "play down" my failures. If I were to put forth just a little less effort than usual the next Six months, this would show up in the rewards I got. 75. 96. 99. 201 I don't see any personal benefit from trying to achieve the higher levels of performance my boss keeps yelling about. For me to get ahead, pleasing my boss is at least as important as tangible accomplishments. My boss tries not to discuss my salary during the same meeting we talk about my work goals and progress toward goals, but this separation Just doesn't work. E~.r._;Trf—T__-mn 15 . ‘ . 0 . 4 APPENDIX E DISTRIBUTION OF STATEMENTS INTO LEVELS OF GOAL SETTING BY CONTENT CATEGORIES 202 ‘ - maul. ’Q‘fl- fiJifl‘uffiW \ . . 1' n - I j 203 HH om Hm wH NH Hm w wHH mH H m m m m m m mm > o H m m H m 0 MH >H m H m m H m H mH HHH m N z m H m o Hm HH m S w m m m 3 am H Hlo mIH mum :Im ml: mum Flo zsowopmo on» apowmpmo o Hm>oq m Ho>mq m Hm>mH Q Ho>mq o Ho>oq m Ho>mq < Ho>mH CH mpcmEmpmpm pcopcoo "CH wcHHHmm mpCcEmpMpm mo pmoEsz mo .02 Hmpoe .moHpowopmo pcopcoo up mchuom Hwow mo mHm>oH oucH mpcmEopmpm mo QOHBSQHSpmHQ APPENDIX F FORM OF THE LETTER TO THE JUDGES 20“ 205 FORM OF THE LETTER TO THE JUDGESl (Name) (Address) (City) Dear Mr. I have every reason to believe you are a leading specialist in manager goal setting, or what is often called management ; by objectives or management by results. From talking with 3 you . . . [or "from reading your book . . . ," etc.]. f Will you help me with my doctoral dissertation on goal i setting? The research on this subject is still quite limited, 1. deSpite widespread enthusiasm for goal setting in connection with performance appraisal, performance improvement, and motivating managers. An attempt will be made in this research project to measure how much goal setting behavior exists in specific company units, as well as what forms this behavior takes. Then, to discover the effects of goal set- ting behavior in various situations, these measurements will be compared with other measures—-of mutual job understanding and of individual manager effectiveness. In addition, data from participating companies will supply norms through which other researchers may compare goal setting in other companies. These norms will be made generally available, and should be of considerable theoretical and practical value. But prior to this research the measure of goal- setting behavior must be constructed. This is where I need your help. You are being asked to judge the enclosed list of statements about goal setting. I have based these statements on ideas derived from the literature on goal setting and from con- versations with managers, authors, and consultants. You will find the specific instructions with the list. A self—addressed envelope is enclosed, and it will help immensely if you can return your Judgments to me by January 2“. The judging should go rather smoothly and quickly. I will certainly appreciate your cooperation and hope that you will find serving as a Judge a rewarding and intellect- ually challenging way of sharing your expertise. Sincerely yours, Jack L. Mendleson Assistant Instructor and Doctoral Candidate 1The actual letters sent out were only one page in length (narrower margins and smaller type were used). APPENDIX G JUDGES' INSTRUCTIONS 206 207 JUDGES' INSTRUCTIONSl 1. AS a first step in developing a scale to measure how much goal setting takes place in specific company situations, I am asking you and other specialists to judge various managers' statements about goal setting by assigning them to seven different classes. 2. We will call these classes A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, and you will find these letters directly to the left of each statement. When you come across a statement which you believe expresses the highest level of goal—setting practice, circle the letter A. For a statement which seems to be "in the middle," circle D (the middle letter), while for those statements which express the lowest level of goal-setting practice, circle G. Other levels of goal setting may be indicated by circling one of the other possible letters to represent intermediate ratings. Be sure you circle one letter, and only one letter, for each statement. 3. As you Judge these statements, please consider each one separately. Take each statement as the only piece of information you have about the situation in which the goal- setting behavior is taking place. The basic question is: Given Just this piece of information, what level of goal setting seems to exist? “. Your task is: a. not to evaluate the desirability of any of these statements, or the desirability of goal setting as a whole. b. not to consider whether the behavior described in the statement actually occurs in all companies. (The final form of the scale will allow for the many different situations that can happen.) c. just to relax and take each statement separately as it comes. You will notice that these statements are expressed from the point of view of a sub- ordinate in a superior-subordinate pair; at a later stage in which you are not involved, the statements will also be expressed from the superior's point of view. 5. In addition to the letters A through G, the letter X appears to the left of each statement. You may circle the X if you should find that the statement gives no information whatever about level of goal setting. 1The actual instructions sent out were only one page in length (narrower margins and smaller type were used). 208 Each statement on this list was chosen because one or more specialists believed it was related to level of goal setting. But naturally opinions differ even among the specialists, and one or more of the statements may strike you as irrele— vant to level of goal setting. In every case first try to classify the statement in one of the regular classes, that is, A through G. If this is impossible, circle X as a last resort. 6. For purposes of this judging, here is what is involved in a work goal: a. A work goal is a current aim or current end for a particular individual at his job, or an individual performance objective. Or a man's work goals may be expressed as statements of how his current work contributes to his company and, sometimes, to his personal develOpment. b. Work goals, in the present sense, apply to specific individuals, not to an overall unit in an organiza— tion. 0. Work goals apply to a particular period of time. For this reason, they should be considered distinct from standing objectives and items on a manager's job description. 7. Experience indicates that it will probably take you thirty-five minutes to make these judgments. Space is provided at the end of the list for your comments, which could also help me. APPENDIX H JUDGES' COMMENTS 209 .- v *-—--, —:A-r—. .- c-‘.‘-'--, Judge Judge Judge JUDGES'COMMENTS 1: Interesting. You have some double—header items which are hard to evaluate. 2: Numbers 3“, 38, “l, “2, 93, 96, 97, and 102 are summed up by 118 (the principle that Ordway Tead wrote about in 1926 and which Chris Argyris has been writing ever Since) and its corrolary: the very difficult problem of balancing short—term and long—term goals. Everyone knows it must be done but is difficult. If your question 1 stated this, it would rate an "a." As is, l is fuzzy-— implies that goals are indefinite even for short periods. Re 2“—-some recent thinking calls for simpler standards than those of 10 years ago. Re 25—-depends on the job--ok to tie directly for certain kinds of selling and piecework-oriented units—-for others it could be wrong and unfair. Re 30-33, the kind of work is a real factor. Certain deadlines can be flexible——and perhaps should be-—others not. Re “8--ok—-but can you cite me a reference on how the salary interview Should be conducted? Re 91, 92--The "how" has (or can have) policy implica- tions-—for example the district sales mgr. with a high volume, profitable district but using entertainment and methods "beyond the pale" ethically. It seems likely that your results will be most interesting. Perhaps I might offer a comment to the effect that many of the statements carry implications for specific managerial skill levels. These would include personal ability in communications as well as diagnostic capability. 3: I am very much interested in the study you have asked me to contribute to by filling out your questionnaire. There is much written and said these days about goal setting, management by objectives, etc. What really counts, of course, is the practice and usefulness of these approaches. 210 Judge 211 Please keep me in mind when making the results of your study available. If it is convenient for you, I might ask for the opportunity to discuss the subject with you. “: As requested, you will find enclosed my responses to the questionnaire that you asked me to complete. I'm sorry to be Slow in responding, but both weekend and weekday business pressures prevented me getting to it until yesterday. Because there is a high pos- sibility you may not be able to read my writing, the following dictation to my secretary duplicates the comments included on page 9: "Thank you for including me. "No student or practitioner of management can really argue with the theory of M.B.O. The trouble is that the poor devil who proposes it to his own company 'suggests' that M.B.O. has ngt existed before and any management that adopts the technique 'admits' it has not had M.B.O. before that date. In any particular company, the 'visible facts' may seem to point to M.B.O. as a solution but, in real life, the 'subtle facts' make a difference. Good luck in your research. Someone really needs to help us all identify the data. The equation certainly has a lot of variables, however." In addition to those comments, I suggest the following questions to you: My opinion as covered in my answers to the questions relates, of course, to me and my boss. There are two natural questions related to this - (1) would another person be as comfortable with my boss as I am, and (2) could I derive as much satisfaction from a relationship with a different boss in the same work situation? Interim standard setting is, without a question, a valuable management tool whether those interim standards are set Jointly or independently. Again, thanks for including me and best of luck with the project. 212 Judge 5: I don't quite know whether you try to assess what is the right company practice in goal—setting [or] what attitude a subordinate would evince if goal-setting were reasonably well done. I have chosen the first alternative, i.e., I have assumed that the subordinate's statement correctly expresses what goes on rather than how he sees it subjectively. Judge 6:1 Good luck on the project! Hope you find something interesting. We need more research in the area. I am a little afraid that your items are too complex and loaded with "democratic" values that people should pay lip service to. You would be better off with shorter, crisper items! Judge 7: I have recorded the weights which I believe each of the attached statements about goal setting would reflect, as requested in your letter of January 11. I'd like to add that the individual statements, as well as the general approach you have devised, strike me as showing a keen insight into the subject and its problems. Please keep us in touch with your study as it advances. Judge 8: I am glad to have had the opportunity to serve as a judge and hOpe your research is fruitful. If possible, I would also like to see your dissertation when finished. Judge 9: See problem with the word level. I think I took the running rule to check the least amount consistent with the statement or for some the opposite. Some diffi- culty in keeping out preferences re means—ends, where no structural relation to the level of goal setting. lThis judges' response was received too late to be included in the scoring. Judge Judge Judge Judge Judge 213 10: Your dissertation looks quite interesting. I would be very much interested in knowing how you intend to implement it. 11: I had difficulty doing this because I guess I see: A as (l) negotiated written plans (goals and routes and measures) (2) based on translated business goals (3) reviewed, recycled and revised periodically by both D as pieces of A G as none of A The attitudinal items gave me no input about level. Nor did the salary evaluation ones. Hope it's helpful. 12: Many of these statements relate to the general level of management practice, administrative morale, inter- personal relationships, and other matters irrelevant to goal setting. (Perhaps I have interpreted it too narrowly as approximately equivalent to "manage- ment by objectives.") The seeming emphasis on career planning implies a relationship that escapes me. I feel that if anything I should have marked more "x's." 13: There is almost no emphasis on self-measurement and self—control as most desirable and possible when goals are clear, specific and measurable. So many items relate to feedback from boss and others above that the impression is left that this is critical. Actually it is the improved ability to get feedback from the facts of the situation that make goal—setting as attractive as it is. l“: The one-sentence statements caused me to assume other conditions before I made the judgment. ‘fia 9‘ u-”~n..‘~h':l'l a...“ Judge Judge Judge Judge 21“ 15: As with most forms of this type, certain questions are subject to multiple interpretation, however, in general it caused little difficulty. Good luck. 16: Please remember that the goal—setting behavior evidenced by most of the above statements will largely depend on such closely-related elements as: philos0phy of management in a given company (e.g., centralized vs. decentralized, authoritarian vs. participative) degree to which company's information system is geared to the needs of operating management structure and provisions of compensation program managerial ability of superior managerial ability of subordinate tenure of subordinate in his current Job —-in short, on a lot of elements of the total management process in a company as well as several personal considerations. I am glad to have had the opportunity to participate in your program. If you end up publishing, I would appreciate it if you would send me a copy of your work. Many thanks. 17: Some of the statements (marked) are ambiguous. [Those marked were 66, 82, 99] 18: You no doubt realize that each judge will be influenced by his "philosophy" or View of how and by whom work goals are set—-as well as how they are used in terms of performance evaluation. The letter he circles will depend upon whether he is proponent of: (1) Management by results (primarily top—down goal-setting), (2) Management by objectives (collaboration, but still somewhat top-down), or (3) Management by Integration and Self—Control (a truly participative approach). Judge Judge Judge Judge 215 I think you can see how I've tried to "balance" the three in my response. Please keep me posted! Thanks. 19: Those items that have to do with "level of performance" (e.g. 5, 1“, and maybe 6, 10) could occur in the absence of goal-setting, but are rated as if goal setting existed or as points one would take into consideration in establishing or evaluating goal setting. Some statements seem to suggest an "attitude" on ; the part of the subordinate--these were rated high ' or low on the basis of whether or not the attitude would favor or interfere with goal-setting. ; 20: Unfortunately I feel that most of these statements ignore managerial responsibility for leadership and the direction of subordinates. I would have hoped that a better split of question types had been used. Otherwise, thanks for letting me have this fun with this. (Additional note attached to the letter): Thank you for this fine letter and for asking me to participate in your study. Good luck on your Doctorate. I would appreciate any releasable material you prepare. 21: I have some difficulty with this conceptually, but I've tried to be helpful. My problem is that my experience has convinced me that team goals are more important to organizational success than are individual goals (as a matter of fact, individual goal pursuit can damage organizational effectiveness) and that individual goals are more satisfactorily set and achieved within the context of the team. 22: As I look back over my judgments, it occurs to me that they reflect a consistent adherence to what may some day be considered a "conservative" or "classical" approach to the application of perform- ance objectives for managers. Perhaps a more eXperimental or flexible attitude will make sense in a few years--but this is still an under-developed 216 technique, and that is probably why I go "down the line" with the basic principles of the concept, as I understand them. My congratulations for making it easy for your "Judges" to be of some assistance to you. I am sure your efforts, if carried out according to plan, will be helpful to the further application of the idea of "management by results." Good luck on your dissertation. Non—Judge l: Frankly, the term "highest level of goal setting" is not defined. You tell me what it is not. Instead of a highly quantifiable but meaningless approach why don't you do a thorough interview of what actually goes on in one or more organizations. it (“‘2"- y"“').'-Y."- ”:43 W71“? ad: ' 1 -..- ' " l . . g ,4 n For example: Take a cut: Pres. VP Mfg. Supt. G.F. F. HE A very sound description of what actually goes on now would be most novel, most unique and most helpful. I assure you that if you try this you will stop talking about "level of goal setting." There is no such thing. Enclosed is a reprint I think will help you think more about your subject. I hope you haven't got a firm "set" on an approach which is likely to be quite meaningless. Non—Judge 2: I am returning your questionnaire. I am afraid I have only partially filled it out. I must confess that I had real difficulty answering the questions. In every case I had the feeling the state- ment may or may not be true depending on many other conditions in the management climate. I therefore felt inadequate about filling in the rest of it. I trust you will get what you want, however, from the other people that receive your questionnaire. APPENDIX I THE GOAL-SETTING INDEX 217 Division Position 1. At my organization level we're lucky if we have plans for tomorrow, let alone next week or next month. 2. I'm lucky if I get any hint from any of the higher managers how well I'm doing my job. 3. It's only when there's an emergency "upstairs" that I get any indication how I'm doing, and then it's usually negative. “. My work is too complex to express in terms of standards of performance. 5. At my organization level, about equal percentage increases in salary generally go to everybody whenever increases are passed out. 6. My boss' idea of par for my job is ridiculous. 7. My boss seems to have only a vague idea of what I'm doing most of the time. 8. There are too many times when I don't really know what the boss expects of me. 9. My boss might discuss my career plans with me, but he'd view it as more or less outside his responsibility. 10. The only real feedback I get about my performance comes through informal channels. 11. With all the things my boss expects me to be doing, I just don't know what he considers most important right now. 12. The way my boss handles the discussion of my weaknesses with me, anyone in my position couldn't help get a little defensive. 13. Once my boss and I agree on my goals, I can't get them changed, no matter what. 1“. Now and then when profitable new areas of responsi— bility come up for me, my boss and I don't catch them in time. 218 l5. l6. l7. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2“. 25. 26. 27. 28. 219 My boss gives me some ideas, but I need more help from him to decide how to correct my performance deficiencies. My boss doesn't seem to realize that many of my operating problems can't be anticipated in the planning stages. Achieving the results my boss expects often requires more of his support than I can get. Sometimes my boss knows enough about the work I do to make sound judgments about my performance and salary, and sometimes he doesn't. Without the feedback I get from official channels, my performance might suffer somewhat, but not too 3 much. I At my organization level we give more attention to the goals of my immediate superior's work group than we do to each individual's goals. My boss tries not to discuss my salary during the same meeting we talk about my work goals and progress toward goals, but this separation just doesn't work. My boss will sit down and talk about my long—term career goals if I push him hard enough. I get some specific feedback about my performance, but I need more. Sometimes my boss asks me just how I plan to reach my work goals, and sometimes he doesn't. At my organization level, individual rewards depend somewhat on luck but more on performance. My boss and I have agreed on specific things I need to do to improve myself (such as night school, Special assignments, and conferences). My boss usually eXpects me to complete an assignment by an exact date. My boss is very understanding about extenuating cir- cumstances which cause me to fall short of our expectations. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 3“. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. “0. 220 I'm not satisfied if I merely meet the low level of work goals which seems to satisfy my boss. At one time or another my boss and I have talked seriously about what's par performance for my Job and we have come a long way, but we continue to disagree in a few areas, mostly of minor importance. Generally, when I encounter a really serious obstacle, my boss and I discuss it and revise my work goals accordingly. My boss is interested in my development, and views setting work goals as a step in the right direction. My boss and I have worked out effective ways to measure some areas of my performance which once seemed unmeasurable. Much of the information I get about my performance is objective and not just subjective, and this helps. I have some measures of my performance in practically every area of my responsibility. Although my boss has a pretty good idea of what my goals ought to be, he lets me state them first and then we work them out. I have verifiable work goals; I mean, at the date agreed upon, my boss can tell readily how close I've come to accomplishing my goals. The idea of continuing improvement is a way of life at my organization level. Not only do my boss and I work out my goals at regular goal-setting time, but he gives me every chance to put in my two cents between goal-setting sessions. My boss really wants all of us at my level to under- stand the goals of his organizational unit and how this unit fits into the total company picture. mu «mm In “l. “2. 221 My boss and I not only regularly put my work goals into writing, but we also keep them up to date. Every so many months my boss and I sit down and decide how much I'm supposed to accomplish by specific dates in the future. When these dates actually arrive, we talk about how I did and what I should be shooting for during the next time period. APPENDIX J SCALE VALUES AND Q VALUES OF THE GSI STATEMENTS 222 2223 Scale values and Q values of the GSI statements. 35:22?“ 527$: £33138 33:22:“ 321%.: Q. £21338 Number Number 1. 0.1 0.6 59 22. 3.3 1.9 A2 2. 0.2 1.0 10 23. 3.1 2.0 80 0.3 1.2 6 2A. 3.7 1.3 106 u 0.5 0 8 2A 25. “.1 2.u 52 5. 0.9 1.0 50 26. “.5 1 9 26 6. 0.9 1.“ 1a 27. “.5 1.8 30 7. 1 1 1 0 107 28. “.5 2.1 no 8. 1.u 0.8 '55 29. .5 1.9 an 9 1 u 1 A 3A 30 “.8 1.2 77 10. 1.5 1 0 65 31 5.3 1.6 82 11. 1.7 1.0 32 32. 5.7 1 2 13 12. 1.7 1.3 “6 33. 5.7 1.0 113 13. 2.1 1.7 56 3A. 5.7 1 u 117 1A. 2.3 1.5 89 35. 5.8 1.“ 7A 15 2.3 1.8 108 ~ 36. 5.9 1.2 5a 16. 2.0 1.6 90 37. 6.1 1.2 3 17. 2.5 1.6 101 38. 6.1 1.2 83 18. 2.6 1.7 10a 39. 6.2 1.2 116 19. 3.1 2.0 “9 “0. 6.3 2.2 “1 20. 3.1 2.1 21 A1. 6.3 1 A _6A 21. 3.2 1.8 99 “2. 6.7 1 u 57 APPENDIX K THE “2 STATEMENTS OF THE GSI ORGANIZED BY CONTENT CATEGORIES 22“ 11. l“. 20. 27. 29. 38. “0. “l. “2. 225 I. GOAL CHARACTERISTICS At my organization level we're lucky if we have plans for tomorrow, let alone next week or next month. My boss seems to have only a vague idea of what I'm doing most of the time. With all the things my boss expects me to be doing, I Just don't know what he considers most important right now. Now and then when profitable new areas of responsibility come up for me, my boss and I don't catch them in time. At my organization level we give more attention to the goals of my immediate superior's work group than we do to each individual's goals. My boss usually expects me to complete an assignment by an exact date. I'm not satisfied if I merely meet the low level of work goals which seems to satisfy my boss. The idea of continuing improvement is a way of life at my organization level. My boss really wants all of us at my level to understand the goals of his organizational unit and how this unit fits into the total company picture. My boss and I not only regularly put my work goals into writing, but we also keep them up to date. Every so many months my boss and I sit down and decide how much I'm supposed to accomplish by specific dates in the future. When these dates actually arrive, we talk about how I did and what I should be shooting for during the next time period. 2. 10. 13. 19. 23. 28. 3“. 226 II. FEEDBACK TO SUBORDINATE ABOUT PERFORMANCE AND GOAL ACCOUNTABILITY I'm lucky if I get any hint from any of the higher managers how well I'm doing my Job. It's only when there's an emergency "upstairs" that I get any indication how I'm doing, and then it's usually negative. There are too many times when I don't really know what the boss expects of me. The only real feedback I get about my performance comes through informal channels. Once my boss and I agree on my goals, I can't get them changed, no matter what. Without the feedback I get from official channels, my performance might suffer somewhat, but not too much. I get some specific feedback about my performance, but I need more. My boss is very understanding about extenuating cir— cumstances which cause me to fall short of our expectations. Much of the information I get about my performance is objective and not Just subjective, and this helps. 0 n! l «am-n MIL-“.303 . . ~ g. . _ 3 . ~ .. - ,... III. 18. 30. 33. 35. 37. 227 MEASUREMENT OR VERIFICATION OF HOW GOAL ACHIEVEMENT WAS TO BE MEASURED AND DEGREE TO WHICH GOALS WERE ACHIEVED; STANDARDS; AND PAR My work is too complex to express in terms of standards of performance. My boss' idea of par for my job is ridiculous. Sometimes my boss knows enough about the work I do to make sound Judgments about my performance and salary, and sometimes he doesn't. At one time or another my boss and I have talked seriously about what's par performance for my job and we have come a long way, but we continue to disagree in a few areas, mostly of minor importance. My boss and I have worked out effective ways to measure some areas of my performance which once seemed unmeasurable. I have some measures of my performance in practically every area of my responsibility. I have verifiable work goals; I mean, at the date agreed upon, my boss can tell readily how close I've come to accomplishing my goals. 15. 16. 17. 2“. 31. 228 IV. PATHS TO GOALS AND PATH FACILITATION My boss gives me some ideas, but I need more help from him to decide how to correct my performance deficiencies. My boss doesn't seem to realize that many of my operating problems can't be anticipated in the planning stages. Achieving the results my boss expects often requires . more of his support than I can get. ?] Sometimes my boss asks me Just how I plan to reach (1‘ my work goals, and sometimes he doesn't. Generally, when I encounter a really serious 5,. obstacle, my boss and I discuss it and revise my ‘“ work goals accordingly. 22. 26. 32. 36. 39. 229 V. CAREER DEVELOPMENT; PERSONAL PREFERENCES; AND SUBORDINATE AUTONOMY IN GOAL SETTING AND IN RELATED MATTERS My boss might discuss my career plans with me, but he'd view it as more or less outside his responsibility. My boss will sit down and talk about my long-term career goals if I push him hard enough. My boss and I have agreed on Specific things I need to do to improve myself (such as night school, special assignments, and conferences). My boss is interested in my development, and views setting work goals as a step in the right direction. Although my boss has a pretty good idea of what my goals ought to be, he lets me state them first and then we work them out. Not only do my boss and I work out my goals at regular goal-setting time, but he gives me every chance to put in my two cents between goal-setting sessions. )W‘au . 9.‘ A’ . ... , .- 12. 21. 25. 230 VI. RELATION OF GOAL ATTAINMENT TO INDIVIDUAL REWARDS At my organization level, about equal percentage increases in salary generally go to everybody whenever increases are passed out. The way my boss handles the discussion of my weaknesses with me, anyone in my position couldn't help get a little defensive. My boSs tries not to discuss my salary during the same meeting we talk about my work goals and progress toward goals, but this separation Just doesn't work. At my organization level, individual rewards depend somewhat on luck but more on performance. APPENDIX L THE “0 STATEMENTS MAKING UP THE JOB PERCEPTION INDEX 231 10. 11. 12. 13. 1“. 15. 232 THE “0 STATEMENTS MAKING UP THE JOB PERCEPTION INDEX Lead and challenge personnel by setting high performance standards. Contribute to increased productivity of Company person— nel (may apply to your component or to other Company components). Anticipate the requirements and demands of the Manager. 1“ Maintain good work habits (punctuality, clean desk or work area, etc.). Improve communication with and/or between others. r" Organize human and material resources more efficiently. Develop new ideas, techniques and methodology to solve current and anticipated problems. Create optimum work relationships with organizational units or groups in and out of the Company, to accomplish your, or the Company, goals. Control and/or reduce cost of products, services, or other outputs (may apply to your own work or to the outputs of others). Collect and interpret facts and information relevant to continuing problems. Develop an effective coordinated team effort (may apply to your own or to other Company components). Direct the work of others. Control and/or improve the quality of products, services, or other outputs (may apply to your own work or to the outputs of other Company components). Improve the definition of Jobs and work methods (may apply to your own job, to your component, or to other Company components). Improve level of technical skill and knowledge (may apply to yourself, to your component, or to other Company components). 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2“. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 233 Respect the feelings of others. Contribute to the Company's fulfillment of its responsibility to the public. Work hard voluntarily. Work independently without close supervision. Develop and improve methods and systems of control and measurement (may apply to your component or to other Company components). Create optimum relationships with Company and component personnel to accomplish your, or the Company, goals. Meet commitment for product or services to those in or out of the Company who use your work, product or other output. Contribute to customer acceptance of Company products and services, to sales, and to market position. Handle emergency situations when they arise. Improve utilization of manpower through selection and training of personnel (may apply to your component or to other Company components). Make good impression on others, good personal appearance, etc. Control and/or reduce expenditure of funds for plant, equipment and other facilities. Make reasoned, objective and timely decisions through the exercise of Judgment. Handle unpleasant situations aggressively. Develop long range objectives, plans and programs (long range is over 18 months). Compensate employees fairly and adequately (may apply to your component or to other Company components). Improve performance results through personnel develop- ment (may apply to yourself, your component, or other Company components). 33. 3“. 35- 36. 37- 38. 39. “0. 23“ Control and/or reduce personnel cost (may apply to your component or to other Company components). Develop short range goals, plans, programs and pro- cedures (short range is 18 months or less). Contribute to the creation of profit. Increase productivity of Company personnel by using and improving individual coaching (may apply to your component or to other Company components). Delegate authority, assign responsibility and establish measures of accountability. Pricing of products and/or of services. Create good will and cooperative climate with other organizational units. Increase acceptance and use by others of products, services, or other outputs through delivery of, and emphasis upon, value (output may be products, services, reports, recommendations, designs, systems, etc. . APPENDIX M SCORING THE JOB PERCEPTION INDEX 235 APPENDIX M SCORING THE JOB PERCEPTION INDEX The following material is reproduced from "Instructions for Using the Job Perception Index," by Stanley C. Duffendack, IndividualDevelopment Methods Service, General Electric Company. The material describes the entire procedure for calculating a superior-subordinate pair's "Perception Index." 236 10. 237 Administering and Scoring the.P.I. Each manager ranks the forty statements by sorting the cards in order of importance for the Jobs of his sub- ordinates. A manager may sort the cards for each Job, or he may feel that several Jobs are so similar that one card ranking will do for these several Jobs. There is no time limit but a guide of 10 - 15 minutes may be given. The card numbers are written under STEP ONE on the Job Statement Card Sort - Work Sheet (see attached Exhibit 1). Label the work sheet to identify who did the sorting and which job it is for. Now follow STEP TWO on the work sheet and write in the rank number of each card. Each subordinate ranks the forty statements by sorting the cards for his own job in the order of importance he thinks his manager places them for his (the sub— ordinate's) job. There is no time limit but a guide of 10 - 15 minutes may be given. Write the card numbers on the Job Statement Card Sort Work Sheet under STEP ONE. Write the identifying information. Now follow STEP TWO of the Work Sheet and write in the rank numbers of each card. Now use the Job Statement Card Sort Perception Index Calculation Sheet. (See attached Exhibit 2.) For each card number write in, for the manager and his subordinate, the rank numbers from STEP TWO of the Work Sheet. For each card record the difference between the rank assigned by the manager and the rank assigned by the subordinate. Record each difference under the column labeled "Diff." Square each number in the "Diff." column and record it in the columns labeled "Squared Diff." Add the columns of "Squared Diff." and record the sum in the space provided. 11. 12. 13. 238 Now use the Conversion Table: (see attached Exhibit 3). Look down the columns labeled "Sum of Squared Differ- ences" until you find the sum of squared differences you are looking for. If you do not find your exact number, locate the two numbers between which your number falls. If you have found your exact number, find the cor- responding number in the column labeled "Rank Order Correlation." If you have not found your exact number, find the number in the "Rank Order Correlation" column which corresponds with the higher of the sum of squared differences between which it falls. “The corresponding rank order correlation is the P.I. and is written in the space provided in the calculation sheet. Now refer to the Interpretive Guide for the P.I. Interpret the P.I. by either using the Norm to indicate relative position or by using the Interpretive Guide for a verbal interpretation. Carry out the above steps to find the P.I. for each manager—subordinate pair. .0: .mm .mm .mm .wm .mm .mm .mm .mm .Hm .om .mm .mm .wm .mm .mm .:m .mm .mm .Hm Loose Lopesz Lopso xcmm ntmo xcam 2339 .mppmo o: HHw Lou co ow new m psmo opHmmn m memo .0m .0: .ON .mH .mm .mH .®H .mm .mfl .NH .wm .HH .SH .sm .SH .mH .mm .mH .33 .:m .IIIIII .aH .mH .mm .MH .HH .mm .mH .HH .Hm .HH .oH .om .OH .0 .mm .m .m .mm .m .5 .5m .5 .m .mm .m .m .mm .m .3 .:m .3 .m .mm .m .m .mm .N .H .Hm .H Looesz pmnEzz goose Loossz - Loose ppmo . peso xcmm ammo xcmm .mopwo o: HHm Low so on was .m xcmm mpHmoo pamppoqu pmoe uxo: mH pmcu ppmo on» mo no Lopso Loossc 626 .H xcmm mpHmmp ucmppoqu pmoe mH was» came xcmp 63p p30 .H Demo mprop H ppmo mo pmpso xcms 62p pzm ocp no Looch on» psm .pmpsom mam mppmo on» 20H£3 .wxcmL EmpH came mcp use x603 Op mxcmp meLoooL mnu mm: CH smppo gums mzu Upoowp 0p mcESHoo paw: pmmH 6:» mm: ”039 amem umzo mmem me:mH MH. :smo m:. ego: ms. msmm ms.u HmsmH 0:.1 mommH wH.| mmmmH :H. spHo ::. mmmm :5. Hssm mg.a mmoma m:.- emsma mH.- swam: mH. Hmom m:. mcnm ms. momm :s.u m:me ::.u ommmH :H.u mm,mH SH. :mom m:. omsm we. mmmm ms.: _ H::mH H:.u H:mmH HH.| mane AH. szwm s:. m:mm as. Hm:m ms.n mmmmH m:.- SHHmH mH.u oHeHH mH. H:Hm m:. m:mm we. m:mm Hs.n wmmmH H:.I omomH HH.| mmmHH 0H. :mmm 0:. wm:m as. wmmm emHHm o>.u mmeH 0:.1 :mm:H OH.u SHHHH om. mmmm om. ommm om. mmHm HLRHm 00.: mHomH mm.n aHm:H oe.n eHmHH Hm. Hmsw Hm. mmmm Hm. mmom SoHHm mo.u momeH mm.u OHszH mc.u mHmH: mm. ::mm mm. SHHm mm. mHmH ogsHm sp.1 momHH am.u :36:H so.n me:HH mm. mama mm. OHom mm. mHmH Homam om.u mQSSH m .1 #9::H mo.n :emHH :m. Hon :m. mom: :m. mQSH Hmaom mo.- mama: mm.u HSH:H me.u meHHH mm. moo» mm. Hoe: mm. mmmH exccm :m.u mm:sH :m.u :mm:H :o.- meHH mm. mama om. coo: mm. mmsH Hsmcm mm.n mamaH HH.: ngqH mo.u casoH am. mea Hm. mmm: am. mmmH Hosea mo.u momxH mm.| Haas: mo.- mamas ,m. mews mm. ea:: mm. mHmH ocmom HS.: mcHsH Hm.u :CSMH Ho.u maer om. moms mm. osm: om. msHH :mmom 00.: mmcsH om.| mmmHH oo. H1oeH e». mm:e ow. :om: om. mpoH s:Ham mm.u m:mpH mm.u HemmH Ho. mmsefl a“. mmms Ho. HmH: Hm. mmm 0:9cm mm.n m:mcH mm.| ::EMH mo. :::cH mm. m:ms mp. omo: mm. mmm :HoaH sm.n pmeeH sm.u wmmm mo. HeweH Mm. m:Hs mm. ::mm mm. mzs Hmnafi om.u HNSSH mm.u HmzmH so. smacs 2m. mmoa :0. ammm :m. mmm nga: ma.: HmmEH nm.- mmmma me. we HM RH. ammo mm. ngm mm. mmm :HmoH :-.| SH:6H :m.u mHmmH we. :maeg 3». mmmc mm. :mcm . mo. . mm: HomeH ma.u aomoH Hm.- HH:mH as. Hume a». maao so. sHmm am. mHm Hana: mr.u Home: mm.- mean: me. yes: mm. mace mo. HH3H mm. HHm :mmoH Hm.u coccH Hm.| mammH om. emxo cm. memo mp. :omm mm. ooH mvocm COHum wmocm COHpm mmloCm. COWQH... Menage. fiwam mmocm Cowum mmoC® COHUM mmoflm upmuawa uHthco nemaafla -Hmssoo Issues: -H6espc -co.anm 1:81:82 uterus: -Hmptoo upmeaHo -Hmppoo ucmaaHo pmpmsom posse pmpmsdm LmULO memSUw tempo pmaxsew amps; posmzdm mego memSUm Looso Umpmzwm M0 5.3%. xcmm ..HO Ejm. Vlcmom .HO Ezm 12-22% MC €56. viCmnw no 53m xcmm ..Ho 83% xcwm .HO Ezm mqub :OHmmm>fiOQ .uQnH :OHDmuomzi min m E nme: APPENDIX N SUBORDINATE EFFECTIVENESS RATING (SER) 2“2 2A3 Division Position 1. Most managers perform their work adequately. A few may be a little weak in an essential or two of successful performance. A few make extremely valuable contributions to the operating results of their unit. In terms of what this man has already contributed, how does he stand with respect to his overall value to his unit? PLEASE CIRCLE THE NUMBER WHICH BEST STATES YOUR JUDGMENT. l 2 3 “ 5 Not an outstand- Makes a good con- Extremely valuable ing asset to the tribution to the to the unit in the unit in the com- unit for which I company for which pany for which I am responsible-— I am responsible-- am responsible-- about what I makes a good deal not quite the con- would normally more contribution tribution at eXpect of one of than I would nor- times that I my subordinate mally have any would eXpect from managers. reason to expect one of my sub- from one of my sub- ordinate managers. ordinate managers. 11. Most managers are probably going to advance no more than one or two levels above their present level, if that much. Some are already over their heads. A few are going close to or all the way to the top. PLEASE CIRCLE THE NUMBER WHICH BEST STATES YOUR JUDGMENT 1 2 3 “ 5 Has gone about Could go up Real promise of as far as he another level going a long way. can or maybe or two in time. even too far. HICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES IIHI “Ill W W ”I HIM W W H Illill II” 1|“ 1| “WI WI 31293104715531