Historically, goal-setting research has included attempts to gauge the importance of participation on perfor Mance and other task-goal attributes such as satisfaction. But much of the prevailing research has failed to recognise the dynamics of the process itself. In an attempt to determine if variation in the level of participation would have any impact, a laboratory experiment using clerical-type tasks was conducted with 72 students separated into participative and assigned goal-setting conditions. Those in the participative condition were assigned to one of three strategies which varied the actual participation allowed. It was hypothesized that both condition and strategies would affect such factors as perfor Mance and satisfaction. Results indicated that the participative condition did not have a significant impact but that there were some differences created by using different participative strategies. Discussion centered on the implications for organisations considering a participative management philosophy and suggestions for further research.
Alutto, J. and J. Belasco, 1972, A typology for participation in organizational decision making, Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 117–125.
2.
Bandura, A., 1982, Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency, American Psychologist, 37, 122–147.
3.
Campbell, D.J., and K.F. Gingrich, 1986, The interactive effects of task complexity and participation on task perfor Mance: a field experiment, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 162–180.
4.
Carroll, S.J., Jr. and H.L. Tosi, 1973, Management By Objectives (New York, Macmillan Publishing Company).
5.
Erez, M. and R. Arad, 1961, Participative goal setting: social, motivational, and cognitive factors, Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 591–597.
6.
Erez, M. and I. Zidon, 1984, Effect of goal acceptance on the relationship of goal difficulty to perfor Mance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 69–78.
7.
Erez, M., P.C. Earley, and C.L. Hulin, 1985, The impact of participation upon goal acceptance and perfor Mance: a two-step model, Academy of Management Journal, 28, 50–66.
8.
Geare, A.J., 1976, Productivity from Scanlon-type plans, Academy of Management Review, 1, 99–108.
9.
Ivancevich, J.M., 1976, Effects of goal setting on perfor Mance and job satisfaction, Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 605–612.
10.
Ivancevich, J.M., 1977, Different goal setting treatments and their effects on perfor Mance and job satisfaction, Academy of Management Journal, 20, 406–419.
11.
Latham, G.P. and S.B. Kinne, III., 1974, Improving job perfor Mance through training in goal setting, Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 187–191.
12.
Latham, G.P. and H.A. Marshall, 1982, The effects of self-set, participatively set and assigned goals on the perfor Mance of government employees, Personnel Psychology, 35, 399–404.
13.
Latham, G.P. and L.M. Saari, 1979(a), The effects of holding goal difficulty constant on assigned and participatively set goals, Academy of Management Journal, 22, 163–168.
14.
Latham, G.P. and L.M. Saari, 1979(b), Importance of supportive relationships in goal setting, Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 151–156.
15.
Latham, G.P. and G.A. Yukl, 1975(a), A review of research on the application of goal setting in organizations, Academy of Management Journal, 18, 824–845.
16.
Latham, G.P. and G.A. Yukl, 1975(b), Assigned versus participative goal setting with educated and uneducated woods workers, Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 299–302.
17.
Latham, G.P. and G.A. Yukl, 1976, Effects of assigned and participative goal setting on perfor Mance and job satisfaction, Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 166–171.
18.
Latham, G.P., M. Erez and E.A. Locke, 1988, Resolving scientific disputes by the joint design of crucial experiments by the antagonists: application to the Erez-Latham dispute regarding participation in goal setting, Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 4, 753–772.
19.
Latham, G.P., T.R. Mitchell, and D.L. Dossett, 1978, Importance of participative goal setting and anticipated rewards on goal difficulty and job perfor Mance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 163–170.
20.
Latham, G.P., T.P. Steele and L.M. Saari, 1982, The effects of participation and goal difficulty on perfor Mance, Personnel Psychology, 35, 677–686.
21.
Likert, R., 1967, The Human Organization (New York, McGraw-Hill).
22.
Locke, E.A., 1966, The relationship of intentions to levels of perfor Mance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, 60–66.
23.
Locke, E.A., 1967, Relationship of goal level to perfor Mance level, Psychological Reports, 20, 1,068.
24.
Locke, E.A., 1968, Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives, Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor Mance, 3, 157–189.
25.
Locke, E.A., 1975, Personnel attitudes and motivation, Annual Review of Psychology, 26, 457–480.
26.
Locke, E.A., 1978, The ubiquity of the technique of goal setting in theories of and approaches to employee motivation, Academy of Management Review, 3, 594–601.
27.
Locke, E.A. and J.F. Bryan, 1969, The directing function of goals in task perfor Mance, Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor Mance, 4, 35–42.
28.
Locke, E.A. and G.P. Latham, 1984, Goal Setting: A Motivational Technique That Works (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall Inc.).
29.
Locke, E.A. and D. Schweiger, 1979, Participation in decision making, in: B.M. Staw, ed., Research In Organizational Behavior (Greenwich, Conn., JAI Press) Volume 1, 265–340.
30.
Locke, E.A., N.D. Cartledge and C.S. Knerr, 1970, Studies of the relationship between satisfaction, goal-setting, and perfor Mance, Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor Mance, 5, 135–158.
31.
Locke, E.A., G.P. Latham and M. Erez, 1988, The determinants of goal commitment, Academy of Management Review, 13, 1, 23–39.
32.
Locke, E.A., K.N. Shaw, L.M. Saari, and G.P. Latham, 1981, Goal setting and task perfor Mance, Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125–152.
33.
Maier, N.R.F., 1958, The Appraisal Interview: Objectives, Methods and Skills (New York, John Wiley).
34.
Maier, N.R.F., 1976, The Appraisal Interview: Three Basic Approaches (LaJolla, CA, University Associates Inc.).
35.
Mento, A.J., R.P. Steel and R.J. Karren, 1987, A meta-analytic study of the effect of goal setting on task perfor Mance, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 52–83.
36.
Miller, K.I. and P.R. Monge, 1986, Participation, satisfaction and productivity: a meta-analytic review, Academy of Management Journal, 29, 4, 727–753.
Oldham, G.R., 1975, The impact of supervisory characteristics on goal acceptance, Academy of Management Journal, 18, 461–475.
39.
Orne, M.T., 1962, On the social psychology of the psychology experiment: with particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications, American Psychologist, 17, 776–783.
40.
Schuler, R.S., 1976, Participation with supervisor and subordinate authoritarianism: a path-goal theory reconciliation, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 320–325.
41.
Steers, R.M. and L.W. Porter, 1974, The rôle of task-goal attributes in employee perfor Mance, Psychological Bulletin, 81, 434–452.
42.
Tubbs, M.E., 1986, Goal setting: a meta-analytic examination of the empirical evidence, Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 474–483.
43.
Wagner, J.A., III and R.Z. Gooding, 1987, Shared influence and organizational behavior: a meta-analysis of situational variables expected to moderate participation-outcome relationships, Academy of Management Journal, 30, 3, 524–541.
44.
Weiner, B., I. Frieze, A. Kukla, L. Reed, S. Rest, and R. Rosenbaum, 1972, Perceiving the causes of success and failure, in: E.E. Jones, D.E. Kanouse, H.H. Kelley, R.E. Nisbett, S. Valins, and B. Weiner, eds., Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior, (Morristown, J.J., General Learning Press).
45.
Zander, A., 1979, The psychology of group processes, Annual Review of Psychology, 30, 417–451.
