Different Goal Setting Treatments and Their Effects on Performance and Job Satisfaction

Author(s): John M. Ivancevich

Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Sep., 1977), pp. 406-419
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/255414 .
Accessed: 18/11/2014 02:35
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy
of Management Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 111.68.108.82 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 02:35:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Academy of Management Journal

1977, Vol. 20, No, 3, 406-419.

Different

Goal

TFreatments
Performance

Setting
and
and

Their
Job

Effects

On

Satisfaction

JOHN M. IVANCEVICH
University of Houston

A field experiment was conducted to compare three

goal setting treatments. Measures of four hard performance criteria and two job satisfaction inidices were collected. The participation and assigned grouips showed
significantly more performance and satisfaction improvements than the "do your best" group. However, the improvements began to dissipate six to nine months after
training.

Previous empirical research with a variety of managerial and student

samples has provided direct or indirect support for Locke's (1968) theory
that conscious goals regulate behavior. Reviews of goal-setting research
(Latham & Yukl, 1975a; Steers & Porter, 1974) indicate that performance
is typically higher with difficult goals than with easy goals, as long as the
difficult goals are accepted by the individual. A number of researchers have
suggested that employee participationin decisions, such as setting task goals,
can motivate better job performance (Likert, 1971; Viteles, 1953; Vroom,
1964).
The subject of employee participation in decision making has been a
focal issue in the management literature. According to the classical management theories, it is the leader's responsibility to assign goals and ensure
that they are attained (Fayol, 1947). Some writers suggest that substantial
subordinate participation in decision making increases commitment, acceptance of goals, and the motivation to perform (Likert, 1961; McGregor,
1970). However, more recent contingency theories suggest that participation is effective in some situations, neutral in others, and a failure in others
(Lowin, 1968; Vroom & Yetton, 1973; Yukl, 1971).
John M. Ivancevich is Professor of Organizational Behavior and Management, University
of Houston, Houston, Texas.
406

This content downloaded from 111.68.108.82 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 02:35:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1977

Ivancevich

407

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the goal setting
process among nonmanagerial personnel in a field setting. Specifically,
the study had four objectives. First, it tested three hypotheses which emerge
from the goal setting theory and research literature, focusing on the implied
superiority of participative over assigned and "do your best" goal setting
treatments. Second, the study attempts to expand our knowledge about
how nonmanagerial personnel react to formal goal setting training. While
research is available on college student subjects (Locke, Bryan & Kendall,
1968), medical center personnel (Latham & Baldes, 1975), and typists
(Latham & Yukl, 1976), little is known about the impact of goal setting
training on skilled technicians. Third, the study involves the setting of
multiple hard performance goals simultaneously. Few previous field studies
have investigated nonmanagerial personnel setting more than one or two
goals simultaneously. In addition, most of the previous goal setting research
involves setting goals on simple tasks (Locke & Bryan, 1966) or on one
performancedimension (Latham &Yukl, 197 6). Finally, the study attempts
to examine the long-term (one year) effects, if any, of formal goal setting
training.
SELECTED GOAL SETTING RESEARCH

There has been a limited number of field studies which attempt to assess
the effects of different amounts of subordinate participation in goal setting.
French, Kay, and Meyer (1966) studied the assigned versus participative
goal setting practices employed in a performance appraisal program for
lower-level supervisors. In addition to the experimental manipulation of
participation, the perceived participation of the supervisors and observer
judgments of the amount of participation during the appraisal sessions also
were assessed, as well as the supervisors' perception of the usual amount
they previously had been allowed. The researchers concluded that: (a)
Subordinates who received a high participation level in the performance
appraisal interview in general achieved a higher percentage of their goals;
and (b) subordinates who worked in a high participation work setting
performed best on goals they set for themselves, while subordinates who
worked in a low participation work setting performed best on goals that
their immediate supervisor set for them.
Latham and Yukl (1975a) conducted a field experiment on the effects of
assigned and participative goal setting among logging personnel. A number
of crews were randomly assigned to a participative goal setting condition,
an assigned goal setting condition, or a "do your best" condition. The
findingsindicated that educational background was an important moderator
of the goal setting condition-performance relationship. In the sample of
educationally disadvantaged crews, the participative condition revealed
higher performance over the other two forms of goal setting. In the sample
of educated crews, performance, goal attainment, and average goal level

This content downloaded from 111.68.108.82 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 02:35:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

408

Academy of Management Journial

September

were not significantlydifferentwhen the three conditions were compared.

In a 12-month study of truck drivers in the logging industry, Latham and
Baldes (1975) found that performance improved immediately upon the
assignment of specific hard goals. The company cost accounting records
suggest that the same increase in performance without goal setting would
have cost the firm at least a quarter of a million dollars.
A study by Wexley and Nemeroff (1975) evaluated the effects of goal
setting and feedback when used in conjunction with role playing exercises
in a two-day supervisory training program. In two variations of the experimental treatment, hospital supervisors were assigned goals for behavior
improvement, and they received coaching and feedback regarding their
performance as leaders in the role playing exercises. The supervisors also
were assigned specific goals after the first and third weeks back on the
job, as well as additional feedback and coaching. A control group of
supervisors participated in the role playing training sessions, but were
not assigned goals or given feedback either during or after training. It was
found that supervisors in the experimental conditions had less absenteeism
and had more positive improvement in leadership behavior than did their
control group counterparts.
Ivancevich (1974) utilized a longitudinal design to investigate the performance of 181 goal setting trained managers in production and marketing
departments.This study using experimental and comparison groups covered
a period of 36 months. It was found that although performance improved
in departments with managers trained in goal setting, these improvements
began to decrease significantly approximatelyeight months after training.
The previous field research and the review literature on goal setting
reveal a number of pertinent points. First, the value of participation in
decision making when applied to goal setting has only occasionally been
tested (Latham & Yukl, 1975b). Also, with the exception of the Latham
and Baldes (1975) 12-month study, the research to date has covered short
time frames of weeks or a few months. Yet an important practical question
involves the point at which improvements in performance and/or satisfaction begin to diminish after implementing a goal setting program. Second,
there are no empirically based field studies reported which compare participative, assigned, and "do your best" treatments using skilled technicians.
Third, the impact of training in goal setting involving the processes of participation and assignment for technicians has not been studied. The question
of whether participative goal setting is superior to other forms for skilled
technicians and other related technical personnel is unanswered.
In order to improve and expand our insight about goal setting in organization settings, the present investigation attempts to build on the previous research conducted with loggers, managers, and medical personnel.
Whether these occupational samples and skilled technicians are similar in
their reactions to participative, assigned, and "do your best" goal setting
treatments is pure speculation at this time.

This content downloaded from 111.68.108.82 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 02:35:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1977

Ivancevich

409

The goal setting literature,research, and specifically the field studies cited
above suggest a number of hypotheses which are examined in the present
study. These are:
Hypothesis I-The skilled technicians in the assigned and participation goal setting groups will perform more effectively and be more
satisfied than the comparison ("do your best") group of skilled technicians.

Hypothesis lI-The skilled technicians in the participation goal

setting group will perform more effectively and be more satisfied than
the assigned goal setting group.
Hypothesis Ill-Although both the assigned and participation goal
setting groups will show performance improvements and increased
satisfaction, the gains will diminish over the 12-month period.
METHOD
Subjects

One hundred and seventy-nine skilled technicians and 28 supervisors in

three of seven plants of a medium-sized equipment and parts manufacturing organization were involved in the study. The plants were randomly
selected to serve as a participative, assigned, or "do your best" goal setting
site for this field experiment. The plants were all located in the West or
Southwest regions of the cointry. The three Midwestern and East Coast
locations of this company had been practicing formal goal setting for the
past four years. In the three plants used for the present study no formal
goal setting has been practiced.
Fifty-eight skilled technicians and eight supervisors from plant I were
given training in participative goal setting. This group is designated as the
participation group. Fifty-nine skilled technicians and nine supervisors
from plant II were trained in an assigned goal setting program. This group
is referred to as the assigned unit. Sixty-two skilled technicians and 1 1
supervisorsfrom plant III were used as a comparison group who in essence
were instructed to "do your best."
A group of 15 randomly selected skilled technicians and five supervisors
in a fourth plant served as a resource unit. This group generated ideas, training materials, and exercises for the two formally trained goal setting groups.
The technicians in this study worked in the maintenance departments
of each plant. They inspected equipment, repaired faulty equipment, and
were responsible for keeping the mechanical and electronic equipment
working so that down time was kept at an acceptable level. The maintenance
departmentswere extremely important, since breakdowns hindered production throughout the organization.
Table 1 presents various characteristics of the three groups of skilled
technicians. These data indicate that on the basis of demographic and
organizational factors the groups which were randomly assigned one of the
three treatments in this study were quite similar.

This content downloaded from 111.68.108.82 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 02:35:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

410

AcadenivY of Manageiiient

Journal

September

TABLE 1
Demographic and Organizational Characteristics of Skilled Technicians

Par ticipationi
(i58)

Characteristics
Education level
Tenure in present job
Age
Average number of
technicians reporting
to supervisor in
department
Average nuimber of
years experience as
a technician
Location of plant
Unionization

12.8 (2.7)
7.3 (2.1)
36.4 (5.1)

Planit III
Comparison-

Planit II

Planit I

Assigned
(it =

("Do Yolur Best")

59)

( i-

62)

13.2 (3.0)
6.8 (2.4)
38.1 (5.3)

12.7 (3.0)
7.0 (2.1)
38.6 (4.9)

7.8(2.3)

7.1 (2.8)

7.6 (3.1)

10.4 (2.9)
Stuburbs of lar-ge city

11.1 (2.9)
Large uirban city

10.0 (3.3)
Large urban city

Yes

Yes

Yes

'

of

technicians
a

Standard deviations are reported in parentheses. None of the differences in the characteristics are statistically significant at p < .05.

Research Design

The present study used four data collection points which are designated
pretreatment, six months, nine months, and 12 months. The pretreatment
measure specifies a baseline period before any of the training in participation and assigned goal setting occurred. Six months after the pretreatment measure, which was approximately five months after the formal
training, the second (six months) set of data was collected. The third set
of data was collected nine months after the pretreatment measure and the
final set about 12 months after the pretreatment measure. Thus, the time
range from the pretreatmentto the fourth data collection point was approximately 12 months. Previous goal setting research suggested that a time lag
of more than three months would occur before post-training improvements
in performance and satisfaction would begin to appear (Ivancevich, 1974).
Therefore, the six-month data point was the first manipulation check for the
impact of goal setting training.
The Participation Training Program

A goal setting training program employing role playing, case analysis,

small group discussions, and lectures was used to prepare the participation
group. The technicians and supervisors engaged in a two and one-half day
participativegoal setting program. Five job-related role plays which stressed
participation between the superior and subordinates in setting goals were
used. It was assumed that by engaging in relevant and job-related participative role play exercises the trainees would become familiar with the process
of this form of goal setting.

This content downloaded from 111.68.108.82 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 02:35:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Ivancevich

1977

411

Throughout each phase of training, specific goals were used which

focused on the actual job performance criteria investigated in this study.
Thus, both the participation and assigned goal setting subjects worked
through goals on unexcused absenteeism, service complaints, cost of performance, and safety. This realism was introduced so that the transfer of
learning from the training setting to the work setting was more efficient.
Each of the trainees, either in small group sessions or in a large group acted
out roles or solved cases as either a superior or subordinate. Role reversal
was used to stress the notion of participation from both a superior and
subordinate perspective.
The resource group provided the examples which were converted by the
trainer into a participation format. The examples provided by knowledgeable, skilled technicians and supervisors were assumed to be better training materials than using cases and role plays developed from nonorganizational examples.
The AssignedTrainingProgram
The 59 technicians and nine supervisors in plant II were given assigned
goal setting training. Lectures, cases, role plays, and small group discussions
were used to illustrate goal setting via assignment by a supervisor. The
supervisor was given the final responsibility for assigning challenging goals
to subordinates.The practice of assigning challenging goals was emphasized
throughout the two and one-half days of training. As was the case with the
participation subjects, the performance goals used were real and similar to
those which were to be considered on the job after the training. The content
for the cases, role plays, and goals assigned was developed by the resource
group. The theoretical material of Locke (1968) was used as the basis for
small group discussions.
The participative and assigned goal setting training programs were used
as the mechanism to institute one-year trial goal setting programs in both
plants. The organization wanted to determine whether the participative,
assigned, or "do your best" treatment was optimal for improving the performance and/or job satisfaction of maintenance department skilled technicians.
PerformanceMeasures
Four quantitative performance measures were used to assess the effectiveness of the skilled technicians. For example, the pretreatmenttarget date
was June 1. Data for two weeks prior to June 1 and for one week after
June 1 were collected and averaged to acquire the pretreatment mean for
unexcused absenteeism, service complaints, and cost of performance. It was
the organization's plan to minimize fluctuations in these measures, and
consequently, the three-week data were averaged for each of the four data
collection points. In essence, this seems to be a more realistic method of

This content downloaded from 111.68.108.82 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 02:35:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

412

A cademy

of Aanzagement

Journ1al

September

collecting hard performance data than to just select a day or short period of
time and use it as the indicator.
Unexclusedabsenteeism was the amount of time a technician was absent
from work without permission. It was measured as a proportion of hours
absent to total hours worked for each data collection period examined.
A service complaint index was used to assess the quality of the technicians'
work. A high service complaint index suggested that the technicians were
not performingtheir job satisfactorily. A service complaint system had been
in use for the past six years. If an equipment operator was dissatisfied with
the work of the technician, he or she filed a complaint. The complaint was
checked by the supervisor, and if it was valid, a file record was made.
The cost of performance was determined by developing a ratio of the
direct cost of a job completed by the technician to the recommended cost.
Those cases which were neither routine nor inspections were not included
in this performance index.
The low incidence of work related accidents did not warrant the collection of data in the same manner as that used for the other three performance
criteria. The safety index was obtained by substracting technician time off
from the job because of a work related accident (e.g., eye injury) from the
time expected to be on the job. The pretreatment measure was developed
by examining records for six months prior to this data collection point. The
six-month collection point used the pretreatment to six-month time frame.
There were no nine-month data collected. The 12-month safety index
designated the safety record from the six-month data point to the 12-month
point.
Before the pretreatment measure was taken and the research hypotheses
tested, the reliability of the major dependent variables was determined.
The unexcused absenteeism average for weeks one, three, five, seven, and
nine, prior to the pretreatment, was correlated with the unexcused absenteeism average for weeks two, four, six, eight, 10. The correlation
coefficient was .83 (p < .001), which indicated substantial stability in this
performance criterion. Similar correlation analysis revealed a coefficient of
.70 (p < .001 ) for service complaints and .80 (p < .001 ) for costs. Safety
records were not complete enough to determine the stability of this
criterion.
Job Satisfaction Measures

Two scales from the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) (Smith, Kendall, &
Hulin, 1969) were used to assess the job satisfaction of the skilled technicians. The satisfaction with work and with supervision scales were considered relevant for providing insight about the effects of the goal setting
treatments. Other attitudinal scales were used in this study, but only the two
JDI scales are reported in this paper. The Spearman-Brownreliabilities were
.87 (work) and .86 (supervision) for the participative technicians, .75
(work) and .81 (supervision) for the assigned technicians, and .80 (work)

This content downloaded from 111.68.108.82 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 02:35:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1977

Ivancevich

413

and .71 (supervision) for the comparison or "do your best" subjects. These
levels of reliability for both JDI scales are within reasonable levels of acceptability (Nunnally, 1967).
RESULTS

Table 2 presents the means of each performance criteria of each group

for the four different data collection points and the adjusted means' for
the combined posttreatments. Following the covariance analysis procedure
(Winer, 1973, p. 775), the adjusted means in Tables 2 and 3 were obtained
by using the pretreatment difference and the overall regression coefficient
between the pretreatment and posttreatment measures. An analysis of pretreatment performance and satisfaction means among the three groups
revealed no statistically significant differences.
A number of analyses of variance with repeated measure tests were performed for each of the performance criteria. Significant main effects of
treatment on cost of performance (F - 12.48, p < .001), service complaints (F - 11.11, p < .001), and safety (F
6.09, p < .05) were
observed. Planned comparisons (Hays, 1973; Winer, 1971) on each of the
performance criteria for the posttreatment periods were made. It was
TABLE 2
Means and Adjusted Means of Performance Criteria
for Three Goal Setting Treatments,'
Performz1aniceCriteria
A bsenteeisn7
Participation
Assigned
Comparisoni
Service Complaints (1
Participation
Assigned
Comparison
Cost of Performance p
Participation
Assigned
Comparisoni
Safetv f
Participation
Assigned
Comparison

A
Adjiusted
Means h

Prereeatwenit

6 MoAllnts

9 Monlthls

12 Months

.082
.064
.058

.0(2
.001
.061

.041
.001
.063

.074
.054
.068

.047
.032
.054

8.71
7.91
8.03

7.01
6.01
7.98

7.14
5.32
8.12

7.21
6.92
8.02

7.17
5.58
7.86

1.41
1.50
1.39

1.40

1.18
.70
1.40

1.43
1.04
1.46

1.29
.98
1.40

73.6
78.1
79.1

61.7
62.4
81.2

---

72.0
79.1
80.4

64.2
72.8
76.9

Untexcused

1.1(

1.46

"Participation, n = 53; assigned, n

54; comparisoni, n - 60.
Iblhe means for the first three criteria and three goal setting posttreatment periods adjusted by the covariance analysis. For the safety criterion only two goal setting posttreatments
periods are used in making the covariance analysis adjustment.
c Lower mean indicates less absenteeism.
d Lower mean indicates fewer complaints.
e Lower ratio indicates better cost performance.
f Lower mean indicates better safety recordl.

This content downloaded from 111.68.108.82 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 02:35:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

414

September

Academy of Managemenit Journial

found that the difference in service complaints between the participation

group (M' -7.17) and the comparison group (M' - 7.8 6) was statistically
significant (F
9.97, p < .05). The participation group also performed
better than the comparison group with regard to cost of performance (M'1.29 versus M'- 1.40; F - 6.82, p < .04) and safety (M' - 64.2 versus
M' = 76.9; F - 7.45, p < .01).
The assigned goal setting data were also examined by planned comparison
analyses on each of the performance criteria. It was discovered that the
differences in service complaints between the assigned group (M' - 5.58)
and the comparison group (M'
7.86) were statistically significant (F 13.42, p < .001). The assigned goal setting group also performed more
effectively than the comparison group with regard to cost of performance
(M' - .98 versus M'1.40; F
versus 76.9; F - 5.98, p < .05).

7.98, p < .01) and safety (M'

72.8

No significant difference existed between the participation or assigned

groups and the comparison group with regard to unexecused absenteeism.
In general, the planned comparisons involving the three groups and the
four performance criteria indicate that both goal setting groups showed
improvement in performance as compared to the nongoal setting or comparison group. Thus, the performance portion of hypothesis I is generally
supported.
Table 3 presents the means of the two satisfaction factors studied for the
four data collection periods and the adjusted means for the combined posttreatments. A planned comparison for the posttreatment periods showed
that the participation subjects were more satisfied with work than the comparison subjects (M' -37.0 versus M'
32.7; F- 5.06, p < .05) and
also more satisfied with supervision (M'
40.10 versus 36.8; F - 6.98,
p < .03). The assigned goal setting group also was significantly more
satisfied than the comparison group with work (M'- 39.0 versus M' =
32.7; F
12.01, p < .01) and with supervision (M' - 43.9 versus 36.8;
TABLE 3
Means and Adjusted Means of Satisfaction Measures
Satisfactionz
Measures 'a

Pretreat-

A djuisted
Meanls

6 Monitlis

9 MonIt/is

12 Mo1itlhs

33.7
34.6
32.9

38.1
39.4
33.0

40.0
41.3
32.4

33.8
37.0
33.2

37.0
39.0
32.7

36.7
36.2
36.8

43.6
44.9
36.7

42.9
45.0
37.2

37.0
42.7
36.9

40.1
43.9
36.8

meiit

Work

Participation
Assigned
Comparison
Super vision

Participation
Assigned
Comparison

a Higher mean indicates more satisfactionon both of these variables.

The means for the first two satisfaction measures and the three goal setting posttreatment
periods adjustedby the covariance analysis.
b

This content downloaded from 111.68.108.82 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 02:35:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1977

Ivancevich.

415

F
9.87, p < .01). As hypothesized (I), both the participation and assigned goal setting groups reported higher levels of work and supervision
satisfaction than the comparison subjects.
Planned comparisons of the participation group versus the assigned goal
setting group were made for each of the four performance criteria. Contrary to hypothesis II, the assigned goal setting group revealed better performance improvement than their participation counterparts. For service
complaints, the assigned group (M' -5.58)
revealed significantly fewer
complaints than the participation group (M'
7.17). The difference was
statistically significant (F = 8.10, p < .04). On the other hand, the participation group showed a better safety record (M' - 64.2 versus M'72.8; F - 6.03, p < .05). There were no significant differences with regard
to unexcused absenteeism between the participation and assigned goal
setting groups.
A planned comparison of the participation group versus the assigned
group on the satisfaction variable showed no significant difference (M' 37.0 versus M'- 39.0, F = 1.03, ns). However, the assigned group reported more satisfaction with supervision, M' -43.9, than the participation
group, M' -40.19. These differences are significant, F = 5.68, p < .03.
Thus, the assigned goal setting participants report more satisfaction with
supervision.

The data analysis revealed that for two performance criteria the assigned
goal setting group showed more improvement than the participation goal
setting group. For one performance variable the participation group indicated better performance. However, for the unexcused absenteeism variable there was no significant difference between the groups. When the
satisfaction variables were analyzed there was no significant difference on
one (work), but the assigned goal setting subjects reported a greater increase in satisfaction with supervision than the participation goal setting
subjects. As a whole, it appears that the assigned goal setting subjects are
performing more effectively and are more satisfied with supervision than
the participation goal setting subjects. Thus, hypothesis II can not be
accepted.
In order to carefully trace changes in mean scores between each of the
four data collection points it was decided to utilize the Duncan multiple
range test. Hypothesis III proposed that although there would be performance and satisfaction improvements in the two goal setting groups,
these would diminish over the course of the study-pretreatment to 12
months. A careful inspection of Table 4 reveals that a number of improvements occur in both the performance and satisfaction variables when the
six month-pretreatmentmeans are analyzed. However, note the decreases
in performance mean scores for every variable when the 12-month means
are compared to the nine-month mean scores.
For both the participation and the assigned groups there is an increase
in unexcused absenteeism, service complaints, and cost of performance
between the ninth and twelfth month. There is also a decrease in both

This content downloaded from 111.68.108.82 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 02:35:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Academyivof Management Jou rnal

416

September

TABLE 4
Performance and Satisfaction Means for Goal Setting Groups
and Duncan's Multiple Range Tests
Pretreati1nenit

Performance
Measures
UnzexclusedA bsentieeisl7n
Participation
Assigned
Se;-iviceComilplainlt
Participation
Assigned
Cost of Performance
Participation
Assigned
Safety
Participationl
Assigned
Satisfaction
Measures
Work
Participation
Assigned
Supervision
Participation
Assigned

6 MoInthis

.082--.0648.7
7.9

.002
--.o( I

73.6-78. 1

11.40

1. I0--

.074
.059

1.38
--.70-

-43.6
-44.9

--40.0-:
41.3---

1.43
-1.04

ns

72.0
79.1

ns
ns

-33.8
-37.0

ns

----37.()
--42.7

llS

42.9-::

45.0-

ns
ns

8.01
:---6.92

-61.7
-62. 4

-38.
1---33.9-::
39.4--34.6 --:` 36.7--36.2--

.041
.(01
-7.J4

1-

1.91
1.50

12 Months12 Moniths Pretreatment

9 Monlthls

the
t Suggests that the difference is significant but in an opposite direction. For example,
assigned service complaint mean at nine months is 5.32, while at 12 months it is 6.92. Tfhe
service complaints have increased significantly. Howevc-, notice that they are still lower
than the pretreatmient mean of 7.91.
p < .01; Differences between data points are significant. For example, the .082 and
.002 means for the participation grotup on the tinexctused absenteeism variable are significantly
different.
.05.
p

work and supervision satisfaction in these two goal setting groups. For
example, the assigned group at nine months reported a work satisfaction
mean of 41.3, while at 12 months they indicate less satisfaction, with
a mean score of 37.0. In general, the data in Table 4 suggest that performance and satisfaction improvements in goal setting groups diminish over
a period of time.
The data and analysis in Table 4 generally support hypothesis III. Improvements in performance and satisfaction occur early after the training,
but they begin to diminish between the sixth and ninth months. In this
organization this information could point out the need to implement some
type of program to prolong the initial improvements in performance and
satisfaction.
DISCUSSION

The results indicate that formal goal setting, participation and assigned,
is superior to "do your best" on such performance variables as service com-

This content downloaded from 111.68.108.82 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 02:35:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1977

Iiancevich

417

plaints, cost, and safety, and is also superior with regard to work and
supervision satisfaction. These results tend to support the hypothesis (I)
that the assigned and participation goal setting skilled technicians will perform more effectively and be more satisfied than the comparison group of
skilled technicians. These results are consistent with previous laboratory and,
field research findings (Locke & Bryan, 1966; Latham & Yukl, 1975a),
which showed that goal setting groups performedbetter than nongoal setting
groups.
These findings also agree with the medical personnel findings (Wexley &
Nemeroff, 1975), which found organizational improvements after formal
goal setting training. The medical study, however, only covered a period of
60 days after training. Additional support for goal setting training effecttiveness is found in a 12-week study of loggers (Latham & Kinne, 1974).
The present findings suggest that even when a longer period of time is used
to adequately test the full impact of goal setting training among organizational personnel the results are still favorable.
Interestingly, the results of the present study indicate slight superiority
of the assigned goal setting treatment over the participation goal setting
treatment. Hypothesis II suggested that the participation goal setting participants would perform more effectively and be more satisfied than their
assigned goal setting counterparts. The Latham and Yukl (1975a) study
found no superiority of participative over assigned goal setting treatments
for educated loggers. The skilled technicians in the present study are
educated, but are in a craft occupation, which may account for the differences in the Latham and Yukl (I 975a) and present study findings. Another
possible explanation for the superiority of the assigned goal setting treatment could involve the typical procedures used in the organization. The
participation condition in goal setting may be so different than what the
skilled technicians and supervisors are used to that it is not sustained over a
period of time such as nine or 12 months.
In this organization, prior to the formal goal setting training, the
predominant practice was for supervisorsto instruct the technicians to "do
your best." This was the procedure used in the comparison group. In the
participation group, the process of goal setting encouraged mutual
supervisor-subordinate agreement about the four performance criteria,
while in the assigned group the supervisorexamined past records of performance, informally discussed these criteria with the technicians, and then
assigned goals to subordinates. The assigned condition seems to be similar
to the typical procedures and could be considered a less drastic change.
Thus, the similarity between past and present could account for greater
improvements in the six dependent variables in the assigned group as
opposed to the particpation group.
Hypothesis III, based on previous goal setting research (Ivancevich,
1974), suggested that initial performance and satisfaction improvements
would diminish over the duration of the study. The findings indicate that
for at least six months both the participation and assigned goal setting

This content downloaded from 111.68.108.82 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 02:35:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

418

Acadenmv of Management Journlal

September

groups were superior to the comparison group. However, there is a pronounced dissipation of performance and satisfaction improvement approximately nine months after training, which is highlighted in Table 4. It seems
reasonable to suggest that reinforcement programs or refresher training are
needed to sustain task performance and satisfaction improvements in the
goal setting programs. The type, intensity, duration, and degree of reinforcement or retraining need to be studied in organizational settings.
Perhaps some combination of extrinsic feedback, intrinsic feedback,
and refresher training in addition to initial goal setting training would sustain the performance and satisfaction improvements. Kim and Hamner
(1976), in a quasi-experimental study of telephone company employees,
found that when evaluative and nonevaluative feedback is added to a goal
setting situation, performance is enhanced beyond the goal setting only up
to 90 days after the treatment.
The findings presented here obviously do not provide managers with
conclusive evidence regarding the superiority of goal setting treatments,
such as participation and assigned, over a "do your best" treatment. No
single field study using approximately 195 skilled technicians and supervisors in one organization can. Yet, it has been found that the assigned treatment needs to be considered as a viable alternative to the participation
treatment. A greater managerial awareness of the differences between the
typical procedures used in an organization and the goal setting treatment
which is being implemented seems to be appropriate. Whatever goal setting
treatment is used, it appears that the Locke (1968) goal setting theory,
which has been consistently supported by laboratory studies and a few field
studies, has applicability to the individuals who were involved in the present
study.
REFERENCES
1. Fayol, H. Genieral antd Indi stial Mantagemnent,trans. by C. Storrs (London: Pitman,
1949).
2. French, J. R., E. Kay, and H. H. Meyer. "Participation and the Appraisal System,"
Humani Relationas, Vol. 19 (1966), 3-19.

3. Hays, W. L. Statistics: For The Social Sciences (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,
1973).
4. Ivancevich, J. M. "Changes in Performance in a Management By Objectives Program,"
Admfinistraftie Scientce Quarterly, Vol. 19 (1974), 563-574.
5. Kim, J. S., and W. C. Hamner. "Effect of Performance Feedback and Goal Setting on
Production and Satisfaction in an Organizational Setting," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 61 (1976), 48-57.

6. Latham, G. P., and J. J. Baldes, "The 'PracticalSignificance'of Locke's Theory of Goal

Setting," Journrai of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 (1975), 122-124.

7. Latham, G. P., and S. B. Kinne. "Improving Job Performance Through Training in

Goal Setting," Jourtnal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59 (1974), 187-191.

8. ILatham,G. P., and G. A. Yukl. "Assigned Versus ParticipativeGoal Setting with Educated and Uneducated

Wood Workers," Journal of Applied

Psychology,

Vol.

60

(1975a), 299-302.
9. Latham, G. P., and G. A. Yukl. "A Review of Research on the Application of Goal
Setting in Organizations,"Academy of Managemient Jour-nal, Vol. 18 (1975b), 824-845.

This content downloaded from 111.68.108.82 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 02:35:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1977

Ivancevich

419

10. Latham, G. P., and G. A. Yukl. "Effects of Assigned and Participative Goal Setting
on Performance and Job Satisfaction," JouIrn?al of Applied Psychology, Vol. 61 (1976),
166-171.
11. Likert, R. New Patternis of Maniagemiienit (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961).
12. Locke, E. A. "Toward a Theory of Task Performance and Incentives," Organlizationtal
Behavior anld HunmaniPerfornianice, Vol. 3 (1968), 157-189.
13. Locke, E. A., and J. F. Bryan. "The Effects of Goal Setting, Rule Learning and Knowledge of Score on Performance," AmiiericainJournslalof PsYclhology, Vol. 79 (1966), 451457.
14. Locke, E. A., J. F. Bryan, and L. M. Kendall. "Goals and Intentions as Mediators of
the Effects of Monetary Incentives on Behavior," Joournal of Applied Psychology, Vol.
52 (1968), 104-121.
15. Lowin, A. "Participative Decision-Making: Model, Literature Critique, and Prescription
for Research," Origaiiizationial Behavior atild Humiiiani Perfonianice,
Vol. 3 (1968), 68106.
16. McGregor, D. The HumiiiantSide of Enterprise (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960).
17. Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric Thieory (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967).
18. Smith, P. C., L. M. Kendall, and C. L. Hulin. The Measurement of Satisfaction in
Work antd Retirem?ienti (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969).
19. Steers, R. M., and L. W. Porter. "The Role of Task-Goal Attr-ibuitesin Employee Performance," Psycliological Builletin, Vol. 81 (1974), 434-452.
20. Viteles, M. S. Motivatioti and(lMorale in Inidustrx'(New York: Nortonl, 1953).
21. Vroom, V. H. Work and Motihation (New York: Wiley, 1964).
22. Vroom, V. H., and P. Yetton. Leadersliip anid Decision Makinig (Pittsburgh: University
of Pittsburgh Press, 1973).
23. Wexley, K. N., and W. F. Nemneroff. "Effectiveness of Positive Reinforcement and
Goal Setting as Methods of Management Development," Jolurnlalof Applied PSYchology,
Vol. 60 (1975), 446-450.
24. Winer, B. J. Statistical Prinlciples in Experimilenital Design (New York: McGraw-Hill,
1973).
25. Yukl, G. A. "Toward a Behavioral Theory of Leadership," Organizational Behav,ior
anid Human Performance, Vol. 6 (1971), 414-440.

This content downloaded from 111.68.108.82 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 02:35:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions