This study was designed to replicate conceptually and to explain the goal-level vs. incentive-type interaction reported by Mowen, Middlemist, and Luther (1981) based on goal setting and social cognitive theories. Mowen et al. found that subjects performed more poorly with hard goals than medium goals under a bonus pay system, the opposite of what was found for a piece-rate system. In the present study, an hourly pay condition was added. Mowen et al.‘s interaction was replicated using a two-trial design in which subjects could obtain feedback about their ability to attain the incentive bonuses between trials. The experimental effects were completely mediated by personal goals and self-efficacy. Goal commitment was related to performance, but did not mediate the experimental conditions. The implications for the design of incentive systems are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Atkinson, J.W. (1958). Towards experimental analysis of human motivation in terms of motives, expectancies and incentives. Pp. 288-305 in J.W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantacy, action and society. New York: Van Nostrand.
2.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action A social-cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3.
Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1173-1182.
4.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5.
Earley, P.C.. Connolly, T. & Ekegren, G. (1989). Goals, strategy development and task performance: Some limits on the efficacy of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 24-33.
6.
Erez. M. & Zidon, I. (1984). Effect of goal acceptance on the relationship of goal difficulty to performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 69-78.
7.
Gist. M.E. & Mitchell, T.R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17: 183-211.
8.
Hollenbeck, J.R.. Williams. CR. & Klein, H.J. (1989). An empirical examination of the antecedents of commitment to difficult goals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 18-23.
9.
Kirkpatrick. S. & Locke, E.A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 36-51.
10.
Kohn, A. (1993). Why incentive plans cannot work. Harvard Business Review, (September-October): 54-63.
11.
Latham. G.P., Mitchell. T.R. & Dossett, D.L. (1978). Importance of participative goal setting and anticipated rewards on goal difficulty and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63: 163-171.
12.
Lee, C. & Bobko, P. (1994). Self-efficacy beliefs: comparison of five measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 364-369.
13.
Lerner, B.S. & Locke, E.A. (1995). The effects of goal setting, self-efficacy, competition and personal traits on the performance of an endurance task. Journal of Sports &Exercise, 17: 138-152.
14.
Locke, E.A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3: 157-189.
15.
Locke, E.A. (1991). The motivation sequence, the motivation hub, and the motivation core. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 288-299.
16.
Locke, E.A. & Kirkpatrick, S.A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 36-51.
17.
Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theor?, of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
18.
Miller, H.E. & Steele, D.L. (1984). Boundary conditions on goal-setting: An examination of goal difficulty effects under two incentive schedules. Unpublished manuscript, Industrial Relations Center, University of Minnesota.
19.
Mowen, J.C., Middlemist, R.D. & Luther, D. (1981). Joint effects of assigned goal level and incentive structure on task performance: A laboratory study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66: 598-603.
20.
Phillips, J.S. & Freedman, S.M. (1988). The task-related competency and compliance aspects of goal setting: A clarification, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41: 34-49.
21.
Pritchard, R.D. & Curtis, M.I. (1973). The influence of goal setting and financial incentives on task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10: 175-183.
22.
Riedel, J.A., Nebeker, D.M. & Cooper, B.L. (1988). The influence of monetary incentives on goal choice, goal commitment, and task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 42: 155-180.
23.
Taylor, M.S.. Locke, E.A., Lee, C. & Gist, M.E. (1984). Type A behavior and faculty productivity: What are the mechanisms?Organizational Behavior und Human Performance, 34: 402-418.
24.
Tolchinsky, P.D. & King, D.C. (1980). Do goals mediate the effects of incentives on performance?Academy of Management Review, 5: 455-461.
25.
Wright, P.M. (1989). Test of the mediating role of goals in the incentive-performance relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 699-705.
26.
Wright, P.M. (1990). Monetary incentives and task experience as determinants of spontaneous goal setting, strategy development, and performance. Human Performance, 3: 237-258.
27.
Wright, P.M. (1992). An examination of the relationships among monetary incentives, goal level. goal commitment and performance. Journal of Management, 18: 677-693.
28.
Wright, P.M. & Kacmar, K. (1994). The mediating roles of self set goals, go& commitment, self-efficacy and attractiveness in the incentive-performance relationship. Working paper, Department of Management, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.
29.
Wright, P.M., O’Leary-Kelly, A., Cortina, A.Klein, H. & Hollenbeck, J. (1994). On the meaning and measurement of goal commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 795-803.
