THESIS

LIBRARIES
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
EAST LANSING, MICH. 48824

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Goal acceptance: Its role in the
goal setting paradigm

presented by

Nancy L. Moeller

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

MA- ' degree in "__ES¥£hnlngy

C)

 

Major professor

Date _Eebruary_ll_._19&3

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

EWN

mIlllllillllglllllilu

 

)V1ESI_I RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
LJBRAfiJES remove this checkout from
—_‘—— your record. FINES will

be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

SEP 22 2008

 

 

 

 

 

Pa #3704753

GOAL ACCEPTANCE:
ITS ROLE IN THE GOAL SETTING PARADIGM
BY

Nancy L. Moeller

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTERS OF ARTS
Department of Psychology

1983

ABSTRACT
GOAL ACCEPTANCE:
ITS ROLE IN THE GOAL SETTING PARADIGM
By

Nancy L. Moeller

Goal setting researchers have repeatedly failed to find empirical
evidence for the hypothesized goal acceptance-performance relationship.
0ft mentioned reasons for this failure included: 1) Inadequate
measurement of the goal acceptance construct (Oldham, 1975) and 2)
coercive demand characteristics which forced goal acceptance in
experimental situations (Locke. Shaw, Saari. 5 Latham, l98l). In this
study, a multiple item goal acceptance scale which corresponded to the
multiple aspects of this construct as suggested by Oldham was proposed.
Also, to reduce the demand characteristics ‘ effect, the goal
acceptance-performance relationship was tested in a naturally occurring
field setting using survey methodology: In addition, two hypothesized
correlates of goal acceptance were tested in this study:
Self-perceptions and the climate for goal attainment (Motowidlo, Loehr,
8 Dunnette, 1978).

Once again. goal acceptance was found to be unrelated to
performance. Climate and self-perceptions were linearly related to goal

acceptance. Possible explanations for these results were discussed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES .......... . ............. . ........... . ............. . iv
OVERVIEW ................................. .... ..... . .............. 1

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .......... .... ...........................

Goal Characteristics . ........ . ........... . ..............
Goal difficulty ....................................
Goal specificity ..... ....... . ................. .....
Factors Influencing the Relationship Between Goals and
Performance ............................................. ll
Knowledge of results ......................... ...... ll
Monetary incentives ...................... ......... . l2
Participation .................. ...... ‘....... ..... .. l3
Supervisory supportiveness ....... ........ .......... lh
Goal acceptance .................................... 15
Factors Influencing Goal Acceptance ..................... 20

moooo 0‘

SUMMARY AND HYPOTHESES ..... ... ...... ..... ...... . ..... . ..... . ..... 25
METHOD 0......0.0.0.000.........OOOOOOOOOOOO ..... ......OOOOO ..... O. 27
sample 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 27
Procedure 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 28

.Heasures ....0.........OOOOO.........OOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0... 28
Data AnaIYSis ......OOOOOOOOOOO......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0. 30

RESULTS .......................................................... 33
DISCUSSION ....................................................... 37
REFERENCE NDTEs .................................................. hh

REFERENCES ....................................................... AS

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

i. Cross-tabulation of the sample by department type
and number of employees working in the department ....... ......... 3i

2. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among
individual goal acceptance items, a created goal acceptance
scale, and performance ........................................... 3A

3. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among
self~perceptions, climate for goal attainment, and goal
acceptance 0.0000...........OOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQ....0...... ...... 00. 3“

A. Multiple regression summary table describing the self-
perceptions, climate for goal attainment, and goal
acceptance relationship .......................................... 36

OVERVIEW
The focus of this study was a construct central to the goal setting
paradigm: Goal acceptance. Goal acceptance was examined as both an
independent variable (as it relates to performance) and a ‘dependent
variable (as it relates to some hypothesized antecedents). The purpose

of this study, then, was to examine the relationships among:

l. goal acceptance and performance, and

2. goal acceptance and its antecedents.

Locke (l968) renewed interest in goals as an element of employee
motivation when he proposed that difficult, specific goals yield higher
levels of performanceIthan non-specific "do your best," easy, or no
goals. An essential appendage to this proposition read: If and only if
the goals are accepted.

Goal acceptance is the degree to which a person agrees with or
commits to a goal assigned or suggested by another person (Locke, Shaw,
Saari, 8 Latham, l98l). It captures the notion of a person's intentions
to work toward an assigned goal. Goal commitment, which is similarly a
statement of intentions, differs from goal acceptance only in that the
source of the goal (e.g. other vs self imposed) is unspecified. Goal
commitment implies a determination to try for a goal (or to keep trying
for a goal). As such, it is the more "generic" expression of a person's

work intentions. In goal setting research, when goals are assigned,

these two concepts have been used interchangeably (Locke et al., l98l).

Goal acceptance is crucial to Locke's major thesis yet it receives
only modest consideration in the literature. Presumably, goal
acceptance can exist in varying degrees (Locke et al., l98l). This
assumption is not supported in the literature, however: "In most of the
studies where acceptance was measured, nearly all subjects showed
complete or substantial goal commitment, thus the range of scores was
quite limited" (Locke et al., l98l, p. 1A3). It appears that the potent
demand characteristics that typically plague experimental situations
literally cause participants to accept the goals assigned to them.
Alternatively, Yukl and Latham (I978) questioned the validity of the
goal acceptance measures which dominate the literature. They concluded:
”It is evident that more research is needed to test the hypothesized
role of goal acceptance in our model. Before the usefulness of the goal
acceptance construct can be determined, it will be necessary to develop
better measures of this construct than those which currently exist" (p.
323) .

Typically, goal acceptance is measured by a single ’ 5-point
Likert-type item ("How committed are you to attaining the goal?" Yukl 5
Latham, l978). Additional similarly worded goal acceptance items did
not change the results (Latham 5 Marshall, l98l). lnvariably, a high
level of goal acceptance was reported by the goal setting researchers
(Locke 5 Shaw, l982; Yukl 5 Latham, I978). Without sufficient variance
on this variable, attempts to relate goal acceptance to task performance
have generally failed (Frost 5 Mahoney, l976; Latham 5 Saari, l979a, b;

Latham et al.,l978; Oldham, I975; Yukl 5 Latham, I978).

Oldham (I975) presented a multi-level goal acceptance model which
delineated varying degrees of goal commitment. Oldham reasoned that if
there are different aspects of the goal acceptance variable, then the
usual one-item measure (which Oldham saw as capturing the first, or
minimal, level of goal acceptance) would be an inadequate measurement
strategy. In the present study, a multiple item goal acceptance scale
which taps various aspects of goal acceptance as suggested by Oldham
(I975) was proposed. Also, in an attempt to reduce the role of the
demand characteristics so evident in laboratory and field experiments,
the goal acceptance - performance relationship was tested in a naturally
occurring field setting using survey methodology. In concurrence with
the literature, it was hypothesized that goal acceptance moderates the
relationship between goal difficulty and performance. "As long as the
goals are accepted and there is a monotonically increasing relationship
between effort and performance, more difficult goals will lead ’to
progressively higher performance" (Yukl 5 Latham, I978, p. 306). In
the study reported here, however, objective goal difficulty was a
constant. Consequently, the expected relationship between goal
acceptance and performance was 'positive and linear: The more the
employees accepted the sales goals set for them, the higher their
subsequent level of performance.

A second objective of this study was to examine some correlates of
goal acceptance. Locke (I968) suggested that the factors that influence

goal acceptance include:

I. the perception that the goal is reasonable (of which goal

difficulty plays a large part) and

2. the perceived relationship between goal attainment and
obtaining desirable outcomes.

He further reasoned that hard goals would more likely be perceived as
challenging rather than impossible if people have a high degree of
self-assurance and previously have had more success in goal attainment
than failure.

Motowidlo, Loehr, and Dunnette (l978) envisaged goal reasonableness
as being' dependent upon two underlying factors: Trait and state
variables. The trait factor they proposed corresponded to a person's
self-perceptions of his/her sense of past successes and his/her
expectancy of success based on a general sense of competence,
confidence, self-esteem, and knowledge of aptitudes. The state factor
they specified corresponded to aspects in the situation that may prevent
goal attainment even when ability and motivation are high and the person
correctly directs his/her efforts toward goal acComplishment.
Supporting works in the areas of self-efficacy by Bandura (I977, 1982)
and psychological climates by Peters and O'Connor (I980) and Schneider
(I975, I978) lend credence to this conceptualization. In the present
study, a scale reflecting Motowidlo et al's. (l978) trait factor was
proposed. In addition, two subscales from a a turnover diagnostic
(Mitchell, Note I) were used to assess the components of the state
factor. These state items were combined to assess the "climate for goal
attainment”: Does the situation facilitate or constrain employees'

performance?

It was hypothesized that there is a positive linear relationship between

both of these trait and state factors and goal acceptance.

LITERATURE REVIEW

For as long as people have tried to explain voluntary human
behavior, theories of motivation have been of interest. Jones (I959)
asserted that a theory of motivation should attempt to explain "how
behavior gets started, is energized, is sustained, is directed, is
stopped and what kind of subjective reaction is present in the organism"
(p. vii). Although goal setting theory does not address all these
pertinent issues, it does suggest that goals have an energizing and
directive effect on performance. The prominence of this "limited
domain" theory in Industrial/Organizational literature stems largely
from a pragmatic consideration: It works (Latham 5 Locke, I979)!

Goal setting is an effective tool for motivating performance.
Locke et al. (l98l) reported a 90% success rate in the use of goal
setting as a motivational technique both in the lab and in industrial
settings. Earlier, Locke et al. (I980) found that the median
improvement in performance resulting from goal setting was I63. In
addition, when coupled with the use of monetary incentives, goal setting
improved performance by a median of more than A0¥--a finding of great
practical significance. Furthermore, organizational savings of $250,000
over a nine month period were reported in one study (Latham 5 Baldes,
I975). Goal setting also appears to induce more than a momentary
effect. Locke and Latham (I976), for example, reported that the effects

of goal setting have been demonstrated for as long as seven years after

the onset of the goal setting program. (Usually, though, the results of
studies are followed up for only a few weeks or months.)

Goal setting as a motivational strategy for increasing productivity
is not a new construct. F.H. Taylor, for example, employed goal setting
techniques in his program of Scientific Management. Extending the works
of Lewin (level of aspiration, l935) and Ryan (the influence of task
characteristics on goals and behavior, I958), Locke renewed contemporary
interest in intentional behavior, particularly goal setting. Goals and
goal setting were assumed to influence performance through their action
on the direction and level of effort initiated and sustained by the
individual. A series of lab studies demonstrated the effects of goal
setting in motivating performance (Locke 5 Bryan, I966, I967, I969).
These findings were soon replicated in field situations (Latham, l97h).
In a recent review of this research, Locke et al. (l98l) summarized:

Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when

the goals are sufficiently challenging, the subjects have

sufficient ability (and ability differences are controlled),

feedback. is provided to show progress in relation to the
goals, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment,

the experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals

are accepted by the individual (p. l25).

The following sections more fully describe the contents of this concise

summary, with particular attention to the goal acceptance variable.

Goal characteristics

The major proposition of goal setting theory focuses on the
characteristics of the goal: Specific, difficult goals yield higher
levels of performance than vague, "do your best" goals. The mechanisms
by which the goal setting effect is induced include: energizing,
directing, and sustaining performance.

£221 difficulty is simply defined as the level of goal sought. A
plethora of empirical tests indicate that the relationship between goal
difficulty and task performance (assuming goal acceptance and sufficient
ability) is linear and positive (Latham 5 Locke, I975: Locke 5 Bryan,
I969; Mento, Cartledge 5 Locke, I980; Yukl 5 Latham, I978). This
relationship has consistently been supported with a variety of tasks
(e.g. brainstorming, assembling toys, typing, and loading logging
trucks) and a variety of participants (college students, clerical
workers, trappers and logging crews).

It was suggested that goal difficulty has an impact on effort
expenditure, that is, the harder the goal, the more effort people know
they must exert in order to attain the goal. Hence, more effort is
expended on hard goals (which are accepted) than on easy goals (Frost 5
Mahoney, I976; Locke, I968; Steers 5 Porter, I976; Terborg, I976).
Effort expenditure has been used as an Operational definition supporting
the energizing function of goals.

Goal difficulty also has an impact on goal persistence which is
”nothing more than directed effort extended over time" (Locke et al.,

l98l, p. I32). Few studies have examined this mechanism although

LaPorte and Math (I976), Mace (I935) and Rothkopf and Billington (I979)
reported support for this contention. LaPorte and Math (I976), for
example, found that experimental participants assigned a hard goal
(answer I8 of 20 test questions) in a prose learning task spent more
time studying the passage than participants assigned an easy (answer 5
of 20 test questions) or general (do your best) goal.

Goal specificity is defined as the degree of quantitative precision
with which the. goal is being specified. Empirical tests generally
couple the goal difficulty and goal specificity aspects, lending strong
support for the major proposition of goal setting: Specific difficult
goals lead to higher levels of performance than vague goals (such as "do
your best”) or no goals (such as “work until told to stop"). This
hypothesis has been tested with similar variety with respect to
participants and tasks as was the goal difficulty aspect of the goal
setting paradigm.

Goal specificity has its greatest impact on the direction of
behavior (Steers 5 Porter, I976; Terborg, I976). A specific goal
provides workers with information concerning the desired end product.
It is assumed that by providing a clear and unambiguous goal for people,
they can better determine how to translate effort into successful
performance by choosing an appropriate action plan.

A study by Frost and Mahoney (I976) illustrates the manner in which
the major goal setting hypothesis is tested. This was a laboratory
study involving 280 graduate and undergraduate students. Forty students
served as a control group while 2h0 students were assigned to

experimental conditions.

ID

The participants were randomly assigned (especially to control for
ability differences) to one of two tasks: Task A, a speed reading task
in which participants were asked to identify the wrong word
(unambiguous) in each sentence, or Task B, an adapted children's jigsaw
puzzle (all the pieces were painted one color and all the straight-edge
or corner pieces were removed) in which participants were asked to join
the pieces together to complete the body of the puzzle. Task time was
identical for all conditions (A2 minutes).

Two levels of goal specificity were operationalized. For the
non-specific (control) goal condition, participants for each task
performed in response to the instruction "work at the task until told to
stop.” Participants in the specific goal condition received goals given
in the form of quantified targets--a given number of specific sentences
in a specified time period (Task A) or a given number of pieces
assembled in a specified time period (Task B).

Three levels of goal difficulty were defined in terms of objective
probability of successfully achieving a given goal level. Goal levels
were based on the average performance of the non-specific goal
participants working on either Task A or Task B for A2 minutes. High
difficulty level was taken as three standard deviations above the mean
score of these control participants (probability of success - .026);
moderate difficulty ,Ievel was taken as one and one-half standard
deviations above the mean (probability of success = .135): average
difficulty level was taken as the mean score of the control participants

(probability of success a .500).

II

In this study, the goal setting predictions were only modestly
supported. Of special interest, no Significant goal acceptance effect
on level of performance was found for either Task A or Task B. No
significant interaction effect between goal difficulty level and goal

acceptance was found either.

Factors influencing the relationship between goals and performance
In addition to goal characteristics, the impact of several
variables on the goal - performance relationship has been extensively

examined in the literature. Prominent among these factors are:

l. feedback, or knowledge of results,

2. monetary incentives,

3. participation in goal setting, and

A. supervisory supportiveness.
The guiding research question was generally whether or not these factors
enhance performance beyond that attributed to goal setting alone.

Knowledge 9: results was first suggested by Erez (l977) to be
necessary in order for goals to affect performance. She reported that
only in the feedback condition did the hypothesized relationship between
goals and performance emerge. An interaction effect was hypothesized
between goals and knowledge of results so that when either was absent,
it was as if both were absent. ”Without a goal or standard against
which to judge progress, knowledge of one's score on a task is of little
use. Similarly, -without knowledge of one's progress in relation to a.

goal or a standard, it is unlikely that the goal will be consistently

l2

attained or approached, especially if the goal is hard" (Shaw, Locke,
Bobko, 5 Beitzell, I98I, p. l7). This hypothesis has received mixed
support in the literature. Some research has supported the notion that
knowledge of results enhances the goal setting effect (Cummings et al.,
l97l; Dossett, Latham, 5 Mitchell, I979: Frost 5 Mahoney, I976: Kim 5
Hamner, I976) while others confirm the interaction effect (Becker, I978;
Shaw et al., I98l; Strang, Lawrence, 5 Fowler, l978). In a recent
review critically evaluating this literature Locke et al. (l98l)
questioned whether the impact of knowledge of results on the
goal-performance relationship has been adequately tested. In several
studies, the conclusions were jeopardized since informal knowledge of
results was available to the participants in the no knowledge of results
conditions (most notably, Kim 5 Hamner, I976). This evaluation of the
literature led the autNors to conclude that "neither knowledge of
results alone nor goals alone is sufficient to improve performance.
Both are necessary” (p. I35).

Monetary incentives have been proposed as a mediator of the goal
setting-performance relationship. Although several hypotheses have been
suggested to explain this effect, one has gained clear support in the
literature: Monetary incentives appear to affect the individual's degree
of goal commitment (Latham et al., I978; London 5 Oldham, I976:
Pritchard 5 Curtis, I973; Terborg, I976: Terborg 5 Miller, l978). It is
apparent that monetary incentives also have an independent effect on
performance (Pritchard 5 Curtis, I973). If the amount of money offered
for performance is sufficiently high, performance will likewise be high,

regardless of the goal setting treatment. In other words, "offering

13

money may arouse the willingness to expend more effort to attain a given
objective than not offering money“ (Locke et al., I98I, p. I37). Locke
et al. (l98l) suggested that incentives may increase the likelihood of
spontaneous goal setting or of setting high goals but this is pure
conjecture at this point. Further research is necessary to clarify the
effect of monetary incentives on the goal - performance relationship.
Participation in goal setting was hypothesized to affect
performance only to the extent that it influences a person's goals (e.g.
acceptance, commitment)(Locke, I968). Research indicates that when goal
difficulty is held constant, performance is the same regardless of
whether the goal is assigned or decided upon mutually by a supervisor
and a subordinate (Dossett et al., I979; Latham 5 Marshall, l98l;
Latham, Mitchell, 5 Dossett, I978; Latham 5 Saari, I979a,b; Latham 5
Steele, I982). Furthermore, participation in goal setting is no more
effective than an assigned goal for promoting goal acceptance (Latham 5
Baldes, I975; Latham 5 Kinne, l97h; Latham 5 Yukl, I976). It appears
that how a goal is set is not so important as the fact that the goal is
set (Meyer, Kay, 5 French, I965). Participation in goal setting may be
important only to the extent that it leads to higher goals being set
than when the goals are assigned by a supervisor (Latham 5 Yukl, I975).
Locke et al. (l98l) suggested though, that participation in goal
implementation may increase understanding of how to attain the goals and
in this fashion, influence the goal-performance relationship . Support
for this notion can be found in a study where (contrary to most goal
setting research) participatively set goals yeilded higher levels of

performance than assigned goals (Latham 5 Saari, I979). The researchers

IA

noted (post hoc) that the experimental participants asked task-related
questions only during the participative goal setting session. These
task clarifying questions, they surmised, had a direct impact on
performance. The authors concluded: "Thus participation may not only
lead to the setting of high goals (Latham et al., I978), but it can
increase understanding-~two variables that can have a direct impact on
performance" (p. I56).

Sggervisory supportiveness. Drawing from Likert's Systems IV
scheme (I967), Latham and Saari (I979) hypothesized that the more a
supervisor is perceived as supportive by the subordinate, the better
will be the effect of the supervisor's behavior on the subordinate's
performance. Their results from a 2 x 3 design (supportive or
nonsupportive supervisor and assigned, participative, or "do your best”
goal setting conditions) indicated that there was no relationship
between supportiveness and performance. However, a supportive
management style did lead to higher goals being set than when the
supervisor behaved in a less supportive (i.e. abrupt and rude) manner.
Similar to the effect of participation in the goal setting paradigm, it
appears that supervisory supportivenessis important primarily because
it leads to higher goals being set (which in turn.leads to higher levels
of performance) than is the case when the supervisor is not supportive.

Likert's Systems IV scheme also implies an interaction between
supervisory supportiveness and supervisory task-related behaviors.
Supposedly, subordinates benefit more from a supervisor's task-related
guidance if the supervisor is perceived as supportive rather than

nonsupportive. Although this relationship has not been tested directly,

15

it was suggested that the cognitive role of supportive behavior (e.g.
clarifying goals, offering task strategies) may influence performance
(Latham 5 Saari, I979; Latham 5 Steele, I982; Locke 5 Schweiger, I979).

£921 Acceptgpce is a necessary condition of Locke's major
proposition: Specific, difficult goals yield higher performance than
vague, "do your best" goals 1: Egg gglx if these goals are accepted.
Goal acceptance is the pivotal component of this relationship yet, as
noted earlier, it has received little attention in the literature.
Usually, goal acceptance commanded only an ancillary role in the
research studies, being relegated to the "manipulations check“ portion
of the discussion (for examples, Frost 5 Mahoney, I976; Latham 5
Marshall, I98l; Latham 5 Steele, I982; Yukl 5 Latham, I978). The first
objective of this study was to explore the goal acceptance - performance
relationship.

Goal acceptance represents the degree to which a person commits to,
or tries for, an assigned goal. While it is assumed that goal
acceptance exists in varying amounts, empirically this has not been
apparent. Typically, goal acceptance was measured by a single, 5-point
Likert-type item ("How committed ar you to attaining the goal?" Yukl 5
Latham, I978) and this single item yielded a very limited range in
scores. This has been true even when additional similarly worded items
have been used to create a scale score (Latham 5 Marshall, I98I; Latham
5 Steele, I982). Generally, a summary report ("All the participants
accepted the goal" or "Nearly all the participants accepted the goal")
finiShed the discussion on goal acceptance. Locke and Shaw (I982)

argued that the potent demand characteristics inherent in the

l6

experimental situation ”virtually guaranteed a high level of goal
acceptance” (p. 2). Since variance is essential in a correlational
analysis and the goal acceptance measures currently used demonstrate
little to no variance, it is no surprise to find that attempts to relate
goal acceptance to task performance have generally failed (Frost 5
Mahoney, I976; Latham 5 Saari, I979 a, b: Latham, Mitchell, 5 Dossett,
I978; Oldham, I976; Yukl 5 Latham, I978).

In the typical lab experiment, the experimenter asks the
participants to try for a particular goal. For whatever reason (e.g.
their desire to help the experimenter, their beliefs regarding the value '
of the extra credit points), the participants at least comply with the
request. Pressure to comply is also evident in the field (Yukl 5
Latham, l978). Perhaps it is as Argyris (I968) argued: Psychologically,
the conditions evoking compliance in the lab are similar to those in the
field. Certainly, employees feel some pressure to comply with the
requests/demands made by their employers (e.g. the desire to help their
employer, their beliefs regarding the value of their pay packet).

Almost without exception (lander, Forward 5 Albert, I969), research
involving the goal setting paradigm was experimental in nature: Both in
the lab and in the field. The treatments/manipulations characteristic
of the experiment may have artificially heightened the salience of the
task in question and robbed the participants of behavioral alternatives.
In contrast, observation involving a naturally occurring goal setting
program might not have this deleterious effect. The undergraduate asked
to assemble paper toys (Latham 5 Steele, I982) for the duration of a

short experiment has fewer behavioral options to which he/she can be

I?

committed than a health-care employee (of five years standing)
performing a variety of tasks (some of which have goals assigned to
them, others of which have not) necessary for the efficient operation of
his/her department. The undergraduate expressed goal acceptance by
assembling the toys (instead of something else) in the face of the
demand characteristics operating in the experimental situation. The
health-care employee has more leeway in which the degree of goal
acceptance may be expressed.

Yukl and Latham (l978) used a goal acceptance measure in their
field experiment that was similar to those found in previous lab
research. They found too little variability in their sample (not enough
goal rejectors) to detect any influence of the goal acceptance variable
on the goal difficulty - performance relationship. This disappointing
result, coupled with the observation that goal acceptance only
correlated with a two-item measure of job satisfaction, led the
researchers to question the validity of the goal acceptance measure.
Locke et al. (l98l) concurred and suggested that indirect measures of
goal acceptance may be 'more (valid than the direct, face-valid items
currently in vogue.

Recently, Locke (l98l) designed a lab experiment in which
impossible goals were assigned. He found that increasing goal
difficulty led to a decrease in goal acceptance but it involved mainly a
one-point shift on the goal acceptance measure from "tried to reach the
goal" to ”tried to get close”. He noted that, at impossible goal
levels, performance was uncorrelated with goals (contrary to Atkinson's

(I957) achievement motivation model) and suggested that:

I8

Impossible goals do not necessarily lead to markedly lower

performance, providing that most subjects are still trying to

get as close as they can to the goal and the rest are trying

to do their best" (p. 8).
Locke further reported that goal acceptance had no effect on performance
'(given that ability and goal level are held constant). This suggests
that the small difference among participants on the three-point goal
acceptance scale used may not have reflected any genuine difference in
their psychological states. -

In a study involving self-set rather than assigned goals, Locke and
Shaw (I982) were the first to find an effect for goal acceptance or
commitment on performance. They ascribed this result to the following:

I. the commitment measure was 39; of commitment to a quantitative

personal goal but to the goal of being in a winning group and

2. the goals were not assigned in this study, allowing for a wider
range of degrees of commitment.

Goal acceptance as commitment implies much more than mere
compliance behavior. Steers and Porter (I976) likened goal acceptance
to goal ownership. They viewed goal acceptance in terms of a congruence
between the assigned task goals and personal aspiration levels. Given
difficult goals, when personal aspiration levels match the assigned
goals, performance should be higher than when personal aspiration levels
fall short of the assigned goals. (If the task goals are sufficiently
difficult, rarely should aspiration levels exceed the assigned
goals--and so mask the goal acceptance - performance relationship. In

any case, the long-recognized, and common, restriction of output

19

phenomenon (Locke, I98I) should reduce the likelihood of this
occurring.)

Oldham (I975) proposed a multilevel model of goal acceptance. He
suggested three levels reflecting varying degrees of the intensity of
goal acceptance. Arranged on a continuum, the first level was composed
of the ”intention to complete" dimension which was designed to assess
conscious intention to complete the assigned goal ("Do you actually
intend to complete the number of time sheets the supervisor assigned
you?"). The middle range of the continuum contained "internalization”
and ”intention to work hard” dimensions ("I think of the number of time
sheets the supervisor assigned me as my own goal for the task" and ”I
intend to work very hard on the task” respectively). The highest level
of goal acceptance, although not measured, was suggested to be personal
investment. ”It seems probable that a question concerning the degree of
personal inveStment the person has in the goal would be relevant" (p.
A7A) as a measure of the highest level of goal acceptance.

While this proposed hierarchical arrangement of goal acceptance
levels and their corresponding relation to other factors (supervisory
characteristics, task characteristics, and participation respectively)
has not been tested, Oldham does suggest that there are different
aspects of the goal acceptance variable. If this were the case, then
the current measures (one item or multiple, but similar, item measures)
would be inadequate for testing the goal acceptance - performance
relationship.

In the present effort Oldham's conceptualization of goal acceptance

was adopted and a four item measure of the acceptance construct was

20

developed. In addition, in an . attempt to avoid the demand
characteristics often operating in experimental situations, this measure

was employed in a naturally occurring goal setting condition.

Factors influencing goal acceptance

The second objective of this study was to examine some correlates
of goal acceptance. If goal acceptance is a critical element in some
goal - performance relationship, it is important to identify the factors
that may determine goal acceptance. When goals are assigned (which is
the usual case), goal acceptance can be considered a form of choice
(whether or not to accept the goal). It appears that expectancy theory
(Vroom, l96h) provides a useful framework for understanding goal
acceptance because it is a theory of behavioral choice (Dachler 5
MObley, I973; Locke, I98I; Locke 5 Steele, I982; Matsui, Okada, 5
Mizuguchi, l98l; Mento, Cartledge, 5 Locke, I980; Motowidlo, Loehr, 5
Dunnette, l978).

Expectancy theory postulates that the strength of a tendency to act

in a certain way depends on the strength of three factors:

I. an effort-performance expectancy, which results from an
evaluation of the .self (Do I have the requisite abilities to
perform?) and of the objective situation (Does the situation
allow/facilitate- the desired performance?). Other components
wieghing in this factor include communication with others and
past experiences.

2. valence, or anticipated satisfaction of the consequences or
outcome, which is a function of people's needs and cultural
heritage.

3. a performance-outcome or instrumental expectancy, which is

estimated from several components, including the
effort-performance expectancy.

2l

In the expectancy model, valence and the instrumental expectancy combine
to estimate the expected utility of an outcome. Expectancy theory
predicts that the higher the effort-performance expectancy and the more
closely performance is seen to be related to positive, valent outcomes,
the greater will be the motivation to perform in the instrumental
manner.

Dachler and Mobley (I973) argued that "To be motivated to work at a
particular level of performance, a person must not only feel that he can
actually achieve that level of performance (high expectancy), but that
this level of performance is also an attractive or useful one (high
utility)" (p. 399). In the realm of goal setting theory, Mento,
Cartledge, 5 Locke (I980) found that subjective probability of success
(or expectancy) and valence affect the degree of acceptance of an
assigned goal. In the first of two experiments, they reported that the
higher the valence and expectancy scores, the higher the probability of
goal acceptance. (Goal acceptance was treated as a dichotomous variable
in this study with I7l goal acceptors and 25 goal rejectors.)
Expectancy and valence, however, had no effect on effort or performance
when other factors (e.g. ability) were controlled.

In a second experiment, Mento et al. (I980) manipulated goal
difficulty and expectancy separately. Usually, expectancy was
manipulated as a by-product of goal difficulty. In this study, false
"feedforward" and plausible justifications for this information enabled
the researchers to vary expectancy independent of goal difficulty.
Again, subjective probability 'of success and valence were shown to be

joint correlates of goal acceptance.

22

Subjective probability of success reflects a person's belief about
the likelihood of accomplishing a certain level of performance.
Motowidlo et al. (I978) argued that subjective probability is dependent
upon (two underlying factors: Trait and state factors. This
conceptualization is entirely compatible with the definition given in

expectancy theory. The trait factor is composed of three elements:

I. an overall sense of past success,

2. a generalized expectancy of success, and

3. knowledge of one's aptitudes and abilities.

The state variable is a function of the specific aspects of the task
situation that seem to either add to or detract from a person's
likelihood of being successful in that particular situation. It
describes the particular climate of goal attainment fostered by the
organization or situation. "A person's belief about the likelihood of
accomplishing a certain level of performance in a task should depend on
self-perceptions (traits) and on perceptions of the situation (states)"
(Motowidlo_et al., I978, p. I76).

The motivating potential of the self-concept or percept of
self-efficacy (a trait variable) has been emphasized by Korman (I970)
and Bandura (I977, I982). Korman contended that people are motivated to
perform in a manner which is congruent with their self-concept. When
self-perceived ability on certain tasks was experimentally manipulated,
it was found to correlate with later performance on those tasks
(Bandura, Adams, 5 Beyer, I977; Cummings, Schwab, 5 Rosen, l97l:

Feather, I966; Feather 5 Saville, I967: Freedman 5 Goodman, I967). The

23

self-concept appears to be a function of social learning experience
(Bandura, I977) and the value a person has come to place on him/herself
as a function of his/her interaction with others (Bandura, I977:
Tannenbaum, I962). Bandura further argued that self-efficacy influences
I effort and persistence in addition to activity choice. "The stronger
the perceived efficacy, the more likely are people to persist in their
efforts until they succeed" (I982, p. l28).

The important components of the state factor can be gleaned from
several sources. The path-goal supervisory model (House 5 Mitchell,
l97h; Hammer 5 Dachler, I975) as well as the goal setting literature
(Latham 5 Saari, I979) clearly indicate the importance of the immediate
supervisor in motivating performance. To the extent that supportive
supervisors clarify goals and explicate the paths to these goals, they
enhance the likelihood that their subordinates will accept the goals.
Hammer and Dachler (I975) for example reported that supervisory behavior
influenced their subordinates' expectancy perceptions, and according to
Motowidlo et al. (I978), these perception govern the extent to which
subordinates accept the goals assigned to them;

Other aspects of the situation which contribute to the state factor
have been suggested by Schneider (I975, I978), Peters (l977). and Peters
and O'Connor (I980). Psychological climates, which people construct in
aid of apprehending order in their work settings, reflect the
constraints and/or facilitators operating in the environment (e.g. "the
unavailability of appropriate tools and equipment or the nature and kind
of training experiences given employees before they are required to

produce on the job” (Schneider, I978, p. 233)). Peters and O'Connor

2h

(I980) also listed situational constraints which interfere with "the
translation of abilities and motivation into effective performance“ (p.
39l). They provided a taxonomy of situational constraints relevant to
performance outcomes, including the availability of tools and equipment,
materials and supplies, job- related information, and task-related
experiences. Peters (1977). indeed, demonstrated that 'certain
environmental conditions, such as those listed above, influenced
peoples' expectancies of goal attainment and hence effort expenditure.
These psychological climates, reflecting availability of tools and
equipment, supplies and materials, training experiences, help from
others, and task-related information, represent the salient components
of the state factor and contribute to the creation of the climate for
goal attainment. Both the trait factor and the state factor, it was

hypothesized, contribute to goal acceptance.

SUMMARY AND HYPOTHESES

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships among
l) goal acceptance and performance and 2) goal acceptance and its
antecedents.

Goal acceptance was assumed to be a continuous variable reflecting
a person's commitment to attaining an assigned goal. In order to
overcome an obstacle frequently met in the literature (limited '
variability stemming from inadequate measurement and/or potent demand
characteristics which force goal acceptance), a four item, 3-point
Likert-type scale was constructed to measure goal acceptance. The items

were based on the three facets of goal acceptance suggested by Oldham

(I975):

I. intentions to work hard to achieve the goal,

2. internalization of the goal,

3. “personal investment in the goal.
It was hypothesized that, given goal difficulty, there is a positive
linear relationship between goal acceptance and performance.

The correlates of goal acceptance were suggested by Motowidlo et
al. (I978) and are entirely compatible with expectancy theory. A trait
factor (assessing past successes, current ability perceptions, and a

general goal attainment expectancy) and state factor (assessing the

climate for goal attainment) were employed in order to examine the

25

26

relationship among goal acceptance and these hypothesized antecedents.
It was hypothesized that there is a positive, linear relationship
between goal acceptance and both a person's self-perceptions and certain

psychological climates.

METHOD

Samgle. Survey respondents were the employees of a national
health-care organization. A total of 5l5 usable surveys were returned,
yielding a 5A2 response rate. Respondents were identified by department
and job title.

For purposes of this study, only the department managers who could
be paired with department performance data and other relevant
information (collected separately) were included in the data analyses
(N-l66). Although tasks performed by department managers and other
department members were largely undifferentiated in the organization,
department managers have the responsibility for attaining the sales
goals set for the department. Since the department managers were held
accountable for the department's performance, they were considered to be
the appropriate participants in this study.

In this organization, the departments were fairly autonomous and
could be classified into three main types. To preserve the
organization's anonymity, further description of these types was
prevented but one of the three department types was more prevalent (63*
of the departments). Departments also differed in the. number of
employees working there, ranging from single person departments to
departments including a department manager and seven additional

I employees.

27

28

Procedure. Surveys were mailed to all the employees of this
organization. Included in the mailing was a business reply envelope and
a letter from the company's president requesting/ encouraging their
participation. Participation was, however, entirely voluntary.

In order to identify the responses (by name and department),
address labels were affixed to each survey. For those respondents who
desired complete anonymity, removal of this label was suggested; 25
respondents did so. -

Two reminders were sent to encourage delinquent, though potential,
respondents but these yielded few additional returns.

Measures. The items of concern formed part of a longer
questionnaire. The questionnaire contained 22A items, was divided into
I0 parts, and was estimated to take A0 minutes to fill out. The
response format changed from part to part so specific instructions
headed each part. The following items were used in this study:

£921 accegtance was measured by four items:

I. I intend to work very hard to attain the sales goals set for

me.

2. I think of the sales goals set for me as my own goals.

3. To me, attaining the sales goals set for me is only a small
part of what I do (reverse scored).

h. I have other on-the-job activities that are more important to
me than attaining the sales goals set for me (reverse scored).

Responses were limited to three scale points: I) very true, 2) somewhat

true, and 3) not true.

29

The trait factor (perceived ability) was measured by three items:
I. I have the skills and abilities necessary to attain the sales
goals set for me.
2. So far, I have been able to attain the sales goals set for me.
3. If I try, I will be able to attain the sales goals set for me.
Responses were likewise limited to the three point scale mentioned
above. I
The state factor included items from a subscale from a measure
designed by Mitchell (Note I). All of the items concerned constraining
and/or facilitating goal attainment. Supervisory behavior was measured
by five items:
I. Manager(s) I work with use the rewards they have (praise,
performance appraisals) to let people know when they've done a
fine job.

2. Manager(s) I deal with explain to employees the things they can
expect from performing in different ways.

3. In supervising people, manager(s) I work with take into account
how people feel from one day to another.

A. Manager(s) I have contact with discuss employee job behaviors
with them. '

5. Manager(s) I deal with are expert at the jobs they supervise.
Responses to these items were limited to five scale points, ranging from
very infrequently, through sometimes, to very frequently.

The goal attainment climate factor included issues other than the
supervisor. Additional situational constraints were assessed by the

following items (also selected from the turnover diagnostic instrument):

I. Work units at have conflicting goals and objectives

30

(reverse scored).

2. Conditions in my unit do not permit people to reach their work
goals (reverse scored).

3. Conditions in my department are confusing (reverse scored).
Responses to these items were limited to five scale points, ranging from
very infrequently to very frequently..

Performance data were collected from upper management, independent
of the employee questionnaire. 'An annual pure profit measure (revenues
minus costs) served as the criterion. In order to equate the
performance score across the diverse departments, z-scores were computed
within groupings by department type (3 types) and the number of
employees working in the department (ranging from I to 8 employees). A
cross-tabulation analysis by these two variables revealed that only the
prevalent department type and a few department sizes (i.e. number of
employees working in the department less than or equal to A) provided
cells with sufficient entries to permit the standardization procedure
(see Table l).

95;; analzsi . There were two parts to the data analysis
procedures, one concerning the goal acceptance- performance relationship
and the other relating the trait and state factors to goal acceptance.
Common to both parts, however, was the estimation of the scales'
internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha).

To satisfy the first objective of this study, a Pearson
Product-Moment correlation coefficient was computed between each
measured aspect of the goal acceptance construct (work intentions,

internalized goal, and personal investment) and the standardized profit

3l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE I. Cross-tabulation of the sample by department
type and number of employees working in the department
Number of employees
I g 3 row total
D
e l 0 0 l3 I3 26
p 4(I63)
t.
2 20 0 0 0 20
T (IQ¥L
Y
p 3 22 A6 3A I8 l20
e .1123)
col A2 A6 A7 3I I66
total (26%) (282) (g83) (193), (100%)

 

 

32

measure. In addition, these items were combined in a goal acceptance
scale and a Pearson Product-Moment correlation coefficient was computed
between the created goal acceptance scale and the standardized profit
measure.

A multiple regression analysis was performed to meet the second
objective of this study. This step-wise regression analysis involved
the goal acceptance measure as the criterion and entered as predictors,
the trait factor (self-perceptions) and the state factor (climate for

goal attainment).

RESULTS

Scale reliabilities ggg intercorrelations. The variables of
interest for testing the relationship between goal acceptance and
performance include: Goal acceptance and an index of performance. Table
2 contains the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for the
individual goal acceptance items, the created goal acceptance scale, and
performance. Goal acceptance was measured by three items-~a fourth item
(To me, attaining the sales goals set for me is only a small part of
what I do: reverse scored) was dropped given low item-total and
item-criterion correlations. The three items measuring goal acceptance
obtained a reliability estimate of .A9 (Cronbach's alpha). The
bivariate correlation between goal acceptance and performance was
nonsignificant (LI-.03). Likewise, the bivariate correlations between
the individual goal acceptance items and performance were generally
small and nonsignificant.

The second objective of this study was to test the relationships
among goal acceptance and its antecedents. The variables selected to
test these relationships include: Goal acceptance, perceived ability,
and perceived climate for goal attainment. Table 3 contains the means,
standard deviations and intercorrelations for these variables. Their
estimates of reliability (Cronbach's alpha) were provided in the

diagonal of the martix.

33

3A

TABLE 2. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among the
goal acceptance item, a created goal acceptance scale, and performance

 

 

 

VARIABLE MEAN 5.0. l 2 3 A 5

l. internalized goal I.63 .70

2. work intentions l.I8 .AA .35

3. personal investment I.66 .66 .09 -.0I

A. invested in goal I.66 .6A .l9c .39 .25 d
5. goal acceptance I.A9 .AA .26 .29 .I8 .37 (.A9)
6. performance .0l l.00 .OA -.I6 .00 -.0l -.03

a

L > .I6, p < .05; L > .2A, p < .OI
bstandardized
ccorrected item-total correlations

dCronbach's alpha

TABLE 3. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations amonga
self-perceptions, climate for goal attainment, and goal acceptance ’

 

 

VARIABLE ' ' MEAN 5.0. l 2 3
I. self-perceptions I.57 .Al (.53)

2. climate 2.52 .53 .30 (.60)

3. goal acceptance I.A9 .A3 .l9 .A3 (.A9)

 

aCronbach's alpha was given in parantheses

bi > °I69 p < ~05; L > .2“, p < .0]

35

Regression analysis. To meet the second objective of this study, a
step-wise multiple regresSion analysis was performed involving goal
acceptance as the criterion and perceived ability and climate for goal
attainment as the predictors. The resulting multiple correlation was
R-.AA (p<.00l). Climate for goal attainment was by far the stronger
correlate of goal acceptance in this study (5-.A3), although
self-perceptions and climate perceptions are themselves intercorrelated
(5-.30). It would be premature to dismiss self-perceptions as a factor
contributing to goal acceptance given its relation to the climate factor
and to goal acceptance (;=.I9). A summary table describing the

step-wise multiple regression analysis was provided in Table A.

36

TABLE A. Summary of multiple regression analysis using goal acceptance

as the criterion and self-perceptions and climate for goal attainment as
the predictors

STEP VARIABLE r R R2 2

R CHANGE OVERALL F SIGNIFICANT

I Climate .A3 .A3 .I87 .l87 36.57 0
2 Self-perceptions .l9 .AA .l9l .00A I8.62 .000

DISCUSSION

Goal acceptance is an integral part of the goal setting paradigm.
Its major thesis proposed by Locke (I968) states that specific,
difficult goals yield higher levels of performance than non-specific,
easy, or no goals if 22g gglx if the goals are accepted. Goal
acceptance is, then, a pivotal concept in the goal setting paradigm yet,
empirically, it remains, in part, elusive, and also ignored. The
purpose of this study was twofold: I) To test, once again, the
relationship between goal acceptance and performance, and 2) to identify
some correlates of goal acceptance.

Goal setting researchers have repeatedly failed to find empirical
evidence for the hypothesized goal acceptance- performance relationship.
One potential source of this failure may have been the one-item
measurement strategy of goal acceptance which dominates much of the goal
setting literature. Oldham (I976) suggested that the goal acceptance
measure in vogue did not adequately represent the goal acceptance
construct. Rather, he argued, goal acceptance had a multi-level nature
and proposed a three tiered model of the construct. In this study, an
effort was made to improve the measurement of goal acceptance, following
the framework provided by Oldham.

Locke et al. (l98l) suggested a second obstacle which may have
prevented the emergence of the goal acceptance- performance

relationship: Coercive demand characteristics which forced all (or

37

38

almost all) of the experimental participants to accept the goals
assigned to them. In fact, very limited goal acceptance score variances
were reported in the goal setting literature which lends support to this
contention. This study was conducted in a naturally occurring goal
setting condition using survey methodology in an attempt to alleviate
the potent demand characteristics phenomenon that may have been
operating in the laboratory and field experiments.

In spite of these efforts, goal acceptance was found to be
unrelated to performance (5- -.O3). The data, and other supportive
evidence, indicated that: I) The proposed goal acceptance measure was
not an improvement, and 2) the situation may have coerced positive goal
acceptance responses.

The proposed measure of goal acceptance consisted of three items
reflecting the upper levels of Oldham's (I976) model of goal acceptance
(in ascending order): Internalization of the goal, intention to work
hard toward the goal, and a personal investment in the goal. Combining
these differing aspects of the goal acceptance construct in a single
measure produced an unimpressive internal consistency estimate of
reliability: 2&f‘.h8 (Cronbach's alpha). Given that this reliability
value estimates the true variance of the operationalization of the goal
acceptance construct, such a low estimate raises doubt as to the
meaningfulness of the variance of the measure. Further analyses
involving the goal acceptance variable were conducted despite this
limitation. This limitation should be recognized, though, as a weakness
in the subsequent discussions pertaining to the goal acceptance

variable.

39

An examination of the means and standard deviations of the three
items comprising the measure of goal acceptance indicate that the survey
respondents did not make use of all possible scale anchors. For the
individual items, use was made of the scale points labeled I (very true)
and 2 (somewhat true) by over 90% of the sample. The final scale point,
3 (not true), was virtually ignored by the respondents. One possible
reason for of the truncated scale mystery resided in the nature of the
scale itself. A three-point scale might not provide sufficient response
selection given the typical survey respondent's tendency not to use the
extremes of any scale. Limiting responses to three scale points might
have defeated this attempt to generate a larger goal acceptance score
variance.

Overwhelming demand characteristics operating in the organizational
setting was another possible source contributing to the restriction in
range finding. In the process of developing the full questionnaire,
group interviews were conducted among a sampling of the employees and a
member of the research team. The interviewees intimated that, at least
in the case of their department, employees were left with little choice
but to accept the sales goals that upper management handed down. 'They
deScribed the organization as being an illustrative example of the
popular phrase: What management says, goes.

It is also possible that these demand characteristics are so firmly
entrenched (culturally) that goal acceptance in any organizational
setting might be a non-issue. _ Schein (l978) labeled this pervasive

phenomenon the I'psychological contract" which is implicitly (and to some

A0

limited extent explicitly) establiShed between employer and employee.
This notion of a psychological contract implies that "there is an
unwritten set of expectations operating at all times between every
member of an organiztion and the various managers and others in that
organization" (Schein, I980, p. 22). One key element of the
psychological contract is the organization's expectation that its
employees will accept the organizational authority syStem. ”Deciding to
join implies acceptance of the basic rules that constitute the
organization's authority system. Within defined areas the person must
be willing to accept the dictates of some other person or some written
rules, to accept limitations on his or her own behavior, and to curb
personal inclinations if they go against rules or orders (Schein 5 Ott,
I962)" (Schein, I980, p. 2A). Schein listed expectations commonly held
by employees that primarily involve their sense of dignity and
self-worth: Humane treatment in the workplace, need-fulfilling work, and
opportunities for growth and further learning.

While the organization can enforce its side of the psychological
contract through the use of power and authroity, the employee can
enforce his/her side of the contract using one of a number of options,
such as, quitting the organization, reducing involvement in the work,
and/or going on strike. It was interesting, in this context, to find,
post hoc, that goal acceptance correlated ;--.2l (p<.0l) with a measure
of turnover intentions. It appears that employees who may be in the

process of divorcing themselves from the organization also felt less

accepting of the sales goals assigned to them.

Al

The second objective of this study was to examine some correlates
of goal acceptance. Earlier theoretical and empirical efforts to
‘integrate Expectancy Theory and Goal Setting research guided this
portion of the study. Locke (I968) suggested that goal acceptance is
influenced by two factors: I) The reasonableness of the goal and 2) the
perceived relationship between goal attainment and obtaining desirable
outcomes. Expectancy Itheory closely parallels this hypothesis: An
employee's choice whether or not to accept an assigned goal is
determined by three key variables: I) An effort-performance expectancy,
2) a performance-outcome expectancy, and 3) the valence of the outcome.
Clearly the evaluation of the reasonableness of a goal includes the
notion of an effort-performance expectancy. In addition, combining the
performance-outcome expectancy and the valence estimate essentially
restates Locke's second factor. In particular, this study focused on
the first factor: The effort-performance expectancy or the employee's
evaluation of goal reasonablesness.

Subjective probability of success (aka, effort-performance
expectancy) reflects a person's belief about the likelihood of
accomplishing a certain level of performance. Motowidlo et al. (l978)
further explicated this construct. The authors argued that subjective
probability of success is dependent upon two underlying factors which
they labeled trait and state factors. The trait factor referred to a
person's evaluation of their past experiences, present abilities, and
future expectation of performance. The state factor referred to their

evaluation of the situation: Are there aspects in the situation which

A2

facilitate or constrain performance? These factors, an employee's
self-perceptions and the climate for goal attainment, were hypothesized
to be related to goal acceptance. The data collected for this study
lend support to the Motowidlo et al. (l978) argument.

In conclusion, goal acceptance does not appear to be empirically
related to performance. Although goal acceptance was fairly limited in
score variance, lack of variability of the measure cannot entirely
explain this failed _attempt to find a relationship between goal
acceptance and performance, especially given the strong relationship
found between the climate for goal attainment variable and goal
acceptance. While the relationship between the climate variable and
goal acceptance might be inflated due to the notorious common method
variance problem, it does belie the lack of variability argument.
Perhaps, given the cultural mores governing the employer-employee
relationship, goal acceptance is not even an issue with respect to
performance. Schein (I978) argued that an employee's acceptance of
organizational authority, in this case the assignment of sales goals, is
an implicit part of the psychological contract between employer and
employee, thus negating the goal acceptance- performance relationship.

Self-perceptions and the climate for goal attainment appear to be
correlates of goal acceptance. This observation suggests two strategies
for an effective goal setting program:

I. The assigned goal level should be commensurate with the
employee's perceptions of his/her abilities. Bandura (I982, p. I22-I23)
explained: "Self-percepts of efficacy are not simply inert estimates of

future action... In their daily lives people continuously make decisions

A3

about what courses of action to pursue and how long to continue those
they have undertaken. Because acting on misjudgments of personal
efficacy can produce adverse consequences, accurate appraisal of one's
own capabilities has considerable functional value. Self-efficacy
judgments, whether accurate or faulty, influence choice _of activities
and environmental settings. People avoid activities that they believe
exceed their coping capabilities, but they undertake and perform
assuredly those that they judge themselves capable of managing.
(Bandura, I977a)." From this study, the choice does not appear to be
whether the employee will accept the assigned goal (and perform
accordingly) or not but, rather whether the employee will remain in the
organization or not..

2. It is important for higher management to show support for the
goal setting program. Both supervisory behaviors (e.g. support,
discussing performance goals, providing feedback) and conditions in the
department (e.g. adequate supplies and equipment, adequate training
opportunities) are related to goal acceptance. Efforts on the part of
higher management to facilitate goal attainment influence the degree to

which an employee will accept an assigned goal.

REFERENCE NOTES
l. Mitchell, Thomas M. Work and career considerations in
understanding employee turnover intentions: Development of the turnover
diagnostic. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of

Psychology, Michigan State University, I982.

AA

REFERENCES

Argyris, C. Some unintended consequences of rigorous research.
Psychological Bulletin, 1968. 70(3). 185-197.

Bandura, A. Social learning lthgggy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hill, I977.

Bandura, A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American
Psychologist, I982, 31(2), I22-IA7.

Bandura, A., Adams, N.E., 5 Beyer, J. Cognitive processes mediating
behavioral change. Journal 9: Personality and Social Psycholggy,
1977. 15(2). l25'l39-

Becker, L.J. Joint effect of feedback and goal setting on performance:
A field study of residential energy conservation. Journal gfi
Applied Psychology, I978, 6 , A28-A33.

Campbell, J.P., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler, E.E. III, 5 Weick, K.E. Jr.
Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New York:
McGraw-Hill, I970.

Cottrell, N.B. Performance expectancy as a determinant of actual
performance. Journal 91 Personglity gag Social Psychology, I965,
2(5). 685-691-

Cummings, L.L., Schwab, D.P. 5 Rosen, M. Performance and knowledge of

results as determinants of goal setting. Journal 9: Agglied

Psychology, l97l, 55, 526-530.

A5

A6

Dachler, H.P. 5 Mobley, W.H. Construct validation of an instrumentality
- expectancy - task - goal model of work motivation: Some
theoretical boundary conditions. Journal a: Agplied Psychology,
I973, 58, 397-Al8 (Monograph).

Dossett, D.L., Latham, G.P. 5 Mitchell, T.R. The effects of assigned
versus participatively set goals, KR, and individual differences
when goal difficulty is held constant. Journal a: Agglied
Psychology, I979, a5, 29l-298.

Erez, M. Feedback: A necessary condition for the goal setting -
performance relationship. Journal 9: Applied Psychology, I977, 62,
62A-627.

Feather, N.T. The effects of differential failure on expectation of
success, reported anxiety, and response uncertainty. Journal 9:
Personality, I963, 31, 289-3I2.

Feather, N.T. Effects of peior success and failure on expectations of
success and subsequent performance. Journal 9: Personality agg
Sggjal Psychology, 3, 287-298.

Feather, N.T. 5 Saville, M.R. Effects of amount of prior success and
failure on expectations of success and subsequent task performance.
Journal 9: Personality and Social Psychology, I967, 5(2), 226-232.

Friedman, A. 5 Goodman, P. Wage inequity, self-qualifications, and
productivity. giganiaational Behavior and Human Performance, I967,
a, A06-AI7.

Frost, P.J. 5 Mahoney, T.A. Goal setting and the task process: I. An

interactive influence on individual performancy. Organiaational

A7

Behavior and Human Performance, I976, 11, 328-350.

Graen, G.B. Instrumentality theory of work motivation: Some
experimental results and suggested modifications. Journal pf
Applied Psychology, I969, 53(2, Pt. 2).

Hammer, T.H. 5 Dachler, H.P. A test of some assumptions underlying the
path goal. model of supervision: Some suggested conceptual
modifications. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
I975, IA, 60-75.

House, R.J. 5 Mitchell, T.R. Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal
pi Contemporary Business, l97A, 3(A), 8I-97.

Jones, M.R. (Ed.). Nebraska symposium pp motivation. Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press, I955.

Kim, J.S. 5 Hamner, W.C. Effect of performance feedback and goal
setting on productivity and satisfaction in an organizational
setting. Journal pi Applied Psycholpgy, I976, pl, A8-57.

Korman, A.K. Toward a hypothesis of work behavior. Journal 9: Applied
Psychology, I970, 53, 3l-AI.

LaPorte, R.E. 5 Nath, R. Role of performance goals in prose learning.
Journal p: EducationalPsychology, I976, p8, 260-26A.

Latham, G.P. 5 Baldes, J.J. The "practical significance" of Locke's
theory of goal setting. Journal pi Applied Psychology, I975, 69,
I22-l2A.

Latham, G.P. 5 Kinne, 5.8., III. Improving job performance through
training in goal setting. Journal 2: Applied Psychology, l97A, 59,

l87-l9l.

A8

Latham, G.P. 5 Locke, E.A. Increasing productivity with decreasing time
limits: A field replication of Parkinson's law. Journal pi Applied
Psychology, I975, pg, 52A-526.

Latham, G.P. 5 Locke, E.A. Goal setting: A motivational technique that
works. giganiaational Dynamics, I979, 8(2), 68-80.

Latham, G.P. 5 Marshall, H.A. The effects of self-set, participatively
set, and assigned goals on the performance of governmental
employees. Technical report, NRI70-890, University of Washington,
l98l.

Latham, G.P., Mitchell, T.R. 5 Dossett, D.L. Inportance of
participative goal setting and anticipated rewards on goal
difficulty and job performance. ' Journal pf Applied Psychology,
I978, 6 , l63-I7I.

Latham, G.P. 5 Saari, L.M. The effects of holding goal difficulty
constant on assinged and perticipatively set goals. Academy pf
Mapagement Jourpal, I979, aa, l63-I68 (a).

Latham, G.P. 5 Saari, L.M. Importance of supportive relationships in
goal setting. Journal a: Applieg Psychology, I979,.§5, l5l-l56. ’

Latham, G.P. 5 Steele, T.P. The motivational effects of participation
versus goal setting on performance. Technical report, NRI70-890.
University of Washington, I982.

Latham, G.P. 5 Yukl, G. A. A review of assigned and participative goal

setting on performance and job satisfaction. Journal p1 Applied

Psychology, l976, 91, l66-l7l.

A9

Lawler, E.E., III. Motivation ip apii piganiaations. Monterey, Calif.:
Brooks/Cole, I973.

Lewin, K. Dynamic theory pi personality. New York: McGraw-Hill, I935.

Likert, R. [pp papap piganiaation: Its management app yaipp. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., I967.

Locke, E.A. The relationship of intentions to velev of performance.
Journal pi Applied Psychology, I966, 5Q(I), 60-66.

Locke, E.A. Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives.
giganiaational Behavior and flppap Performapce, I968, 3, l57-l89.

Locke, E.A. The world's shortest goal setting study. Technical report,
NRI70-890, University of Maryland, l98l.

Locke, E.A. The ubiquity of the technique of goal setting in theories
of and approaches to employee motivation. Academy pi Management
82212:. 1978. 1 3. 59A-601.

Locke, E.A. 5 Bryan, J.F. .Cognitive aspects of psychomotor performance:
The effects of performance goals on level of performance. Journal
pi ippjiep Psycholpgy, I966, 59, 286-29l.

.Locke, E.A. 5 Bryan, J.F. Performance goals as determinants of level of
performance and boredom. Journal pi Applied Psychology, I967, 51,
l20-l30.

Locke, E.A. 5 Bryan, J.F. The directing function of goals in task
performance. giganiaational Behavior and Human Performance, I969,
A. 35-A2.

Locke, E.A. 5 Schweiger, D.M. Particcpation in decision-making: One

more look. In B.M. Staw (ed.) Research ip piganizational behavior

50

(Vol. I) Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, I979.

Locke, E.A., Shaw, K.N. The relationship of outcome valence, personal
goal and commitment to performance when no goals are assinged.
Technical report, NRI70-890, University of Maryland, I982.

Locke,E.A., Shaw, K.N., Saari, L.M. 5 Latham, G.P. Goal setting and
task performance: l969-l980. Psychologigal Bulletin, l98l, 59(l),
l25-l52.

Lofquist,L.H. 5 Dawis, R.V. Adjustment ip work, New York: Appleton-

 

Century- Crofts, I969.

London, M. 5 Oldham, G.R. Effects of varying goal types and incentive
systems on performance and satisfaction. Academy pi Management
Journal, I976, 12, 537-5A6.

Mace, C.A. Incentives: Some experimental studies (Rep. 72) London:
Industrial Health Research Board, I935.

Matsui, T.,Okada, A. 5 Mizuguchi, R. Expectancy theory prediction of
the goal theory postulate, "The harder the goals, the higher the
performance." Journal pi Applied Psychology, l98l, 66(I), 5A-58.

Mento, A.J., Cartledge, N.D. 5 Locke, E.A. Maryland vs. .Michigan vs.
Minnesota: Another look at the relationship of expectancy and goal
difficulty to task performance. Organizational Behavior app appap
Performance, I980, 25. Al9-AAO.

Meyer, H., Kay, E. 5 French, J.R. Split roles in performance appraisal.
Harvard Business Review, I965, 53, l23-I29.

Mitchell, T.R. 5 Biglan, A. Instrumentality theories: Current uses in

psychology. Psychological Bulletin, l97I, 15, A32-A5A.

SI

Motowidlo, S.J., Loehr, V., 5 Dunnette, M.D. A laboratory study of the
.effects of goal specificity on the relationship between probabilty
of success and performance. Journal pi Applied Psychology, I978,
é}. 172-179.

Oldham, G.R. The. impact of supervisory characteristics on goal
acceptance. Academy pi flapagement Journal, I975, lg, A6l-A75.
Peters, L.H. Cognitive model of motivation, expectancy theory and
effort: an analysis and empirical test. giganiaational Behavior

and Human Performance n.x , I977, 20, I29-IA8.

Peters. L.H. 5 O'Connor, E.J. Situational constraints and work
outcomes: The influences of a frequently overlooked construct.
Academy pi Management Review, I980, 5, 39l-397.

Pritchard, R.D. 5 Curtis, M.I. The influence of goal setting and
financial incentives on task performance. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, I973, 19, I75-I83.

Rothkopf, E.Z. 5 Billington, M.J. Goal-guided learning from text:
Inferring a descriptive processing model from inspection times and
eye movements. Journal pi Educational Psychology, I979, ‘11,
3I0-327.

Ryan, T.A. Drives, tasks, and the initiation of behavior. American
Journal pi Psychology, I958, 11, 7A-93.

Schein, E. H. Career dynamics. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, I978.

Schein, E. H. giganiaational psychoipgy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:

Prentice-Hall, Inc., I980.

52

Schneider, B. Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Psychology,

1975. Zfi. AA7'A79.

Schneider, B. Person-situation selection: A review of some
ability-situation interaction research. Personnel Psycholgoy,

 

I978, 31, 28l-297.

Shaw, K.N., Locke, E.A., Bobko, P. 5 Beitzell, B. The interaction of
goal difficulty/ specificity and feedback on task performance.
Technical report, NRI70-890, University of Maryland, I98l.

Steers, R.M. 5 Porter, L.W. The role of task-goal attributes in
employee performance. Psychological Bulletin, I97A, a1, A3A-A52.

Strang, H.R., Lawrence, E.R. 5 Fowler, P.C. Effects of assigned goal

level and knowledge of results on arithmetic computation: A

laboratory study. Journal _i Applied Psychology, I978, 53,
AA6-A50.

Terborg J.R. The motivational components of gpal setting. Journal pi
Applieg Psychology, I976, 51, 6I3-62I.

Terborg, J.R. 5 Miller, H.E. Motivation behavior and performance: A
closer examination of goal setting and monetary incentives.
Journal pi Applied Psycholpgy, I978, 6 , 29-39.

Vroom, V. Work app motivation. New York: Wiley, I96A.

 

Yukl, G.A. 5 Latham, G.P. Interrelationships among employee
participation, individual differences, goal difficulty, goal
acceptance, goal instrumentality, and performance. Personnel

Psycholgoy, I978, 31, 305-323.

53

Zander, A., Forward, J. 5 Albert, R. Adaptation of board members to
repeated failure or success by their organization. giganiaational

Behavior and Human Performance, I969, 5, 56-76.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
31293500260074