Goal Setting and Goal Congruency - Case Study Example

Goal Setting and Goal Congruency: Tested Formulas in Organisational and Individual Motivation Abstract At the core of the discourse on organisational management and leadership are the theories and concepts of goal setting. Common to both leaders and managers is the emphasis on the outcomes they generate, which are founded on the goals they work for. As they strive to produce results, shared goals, values and objectives form the foundation of accomplishment. Of all the key theories and concepts of work motivation, the theory of goal-setting has shown more scientific strength thus far than any other theory or method to work motivation. Furthermore, empirical evidence suggests that goal setting has the greatest potential as a functional motivational instrument for managers. In other words, the evidence indicates that the goal setting theory is well-founded, or else the most well-founded model, of work motivation. Members of an organisation are more likely to perform and behave in the interests of the company if there is goal congruency between the organisation and individual member. Essentially, people in organisations are motivated if they perceive their interests to be the aligned with or the same as the interests of the organisation. The objective of this paper is to discuss and analyse this argument through the lens of organisational leadership and goal-setting theories. Introduction Gardner emphasised that leaders and managers release present motives. They develop those motives that satisfy the interests of collective action in the quest for common goals. In this manner, they align organisation and individual goals. Leaders and managers require the kind of determination, effort, discipline, and drive that bring about efficient and effective performance. They construct an environment where in pride contributes greatly to shared goals. The suggestion of Winston Churchill is commonly cited: “It is no use saying we are doing our best. You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary” (Bassett 1993: 44). Leaders could motivate and encourage and managers could efficiently apportion resources, but the implications are of trivial value unless they achieve the objective for which the organisation exists (Curtis 1994). Only when insights develop into goals founded on ideas about what is essential or what one aspires to achieve or should achieve do they influence action. The presence of a goal influences task or work performance due to the fact that individuals will take action to realise the goal. Goal-setting theory views the description of performance differently than motivation theory. Theories of motivation begin with general and remote regulators. Commonly conscious and situationally particular variables are disregarded. While motives and needs are indispensable to a complete awareness of human action, they are a number of aspects distant from action itself (London 2003). On the other hand, goal-setting theory begins with the conscious, situationally particular motivational forces ‘closest to actions: goals and intentions’ (Kleinbeck, Quast, Thierry, & Hacker 1990: 6). In that case, goal theory operates backward to identify what creates goals and makes them useful. The close-to-action, specific goal setting models have been more effective in describing performance than the far-from-action, broad motivational models that emphasise common needs and interests founded on subconscious ideas and beliefs. The connection between the two kinds of theories and groups of concepts is intricate and not yet completely recognised (London 2003). For instance, the necessity for success has been discovered to be unconnected to goal preference. The primary assumption is that common needs, interests and subconscious ideas and beliefs affect behaviour through their impacts on conscious, situationally specific goals and motives in conjunction with believed situational claims (Ogletree, Howell & Carpenter 2005). Goals and Motivation Goals influence task or work performance in at least three approaches. First, they boost performance by encouraging individuals to exert effort consistent with the demands or difficulty of the task or goals. It is not a plain and simple biological stimulation that encourages optimal performance, but instead, goal related attempt. Normally, one anticipates more effort and energy to be used up when goals are challenging than when they are uncomplicated: ‘Greater effort should produce in greater performance, and more effort is needed to attain hard goals than easy goals’ (Kleinbeck et al. 1990: 10). Greater effort normally achieves better outcomes than less effort, provided that skill is sufficient. Second, goals inspire people to persevere in their tasks through time. Difficult goals will motivate people to work for longer hours than unclear or unchallenging goals. Challenging or difficult goals motivate people to be determined, to decline to settle for less. People who set unchallenging goals are less motivated than those who set difficult goals. While this outcome may appear insignificant, it does show the reality that difficult goals motivate people longer than less difficult goals, even when all people are performing tasks at the same pace (Barton 2000). Third, unambiguous, specific goals orient the attention of the individual to appropriate behaviours or relevant results in two ways. First, they guide people away from goal-insignificant tasks and toward goal-related tasks. Second, they stimulate an individual’s accumulated skills and knowledge that are believed as significant to the activity. If people expect or find that effort, determination, and focus will not be adequate, they may then try to find out better means or techniques for accomplishing a task (Callaway 1999). Task techniques could also be improved as a way of maximising effort. One way by which people whose goals are determined in terms of quantity could try to achieve them is to lessen their outputs’ quality. Hence, if quality is an essential result, quality goals, instead of or in supplement to quantity goals, must be determined. Goals could not help, and they could even damage performance, at the early phases of learning a difficult task or activity on which there has been no initial preparation or improper training (Karakowsky & Mann 2008). The process of setting goal could not operate when: ‘(1) the task is complex and one must learn the best strategy to use; (2) one has no prior experience or training and thus has no problem-solving process on which to fall back; or (3) when there is a time pressure to perform well immediately’ (Kleinbeck et al. 1990: 11). This section has presented the context for the goal-setting theory. However, the fundamental theory of goal-setting should be formed into an integrated framework in order to appropriately explain the effect of goal setting or congruency on people’s motivation in organisations. This integrated framework will describe the essentials of motivation to work and employee satisfaction. Moreover, it will identify their connection. Locke and Latham (1990 as cited in Kleinback et al. 1990) referred to this the ‘higher performance cycle’. They emphasised that this framework is exclusive mainly to the individual level of analysis, although there is proof that similar philosophies are valid to groups and organisations. Goals can be determined in at least three approaches. They can be allocated, they can be determined collaboratively, or an individual can select the goal, or what is called self-set. Traditional management theories prefer the notion that it is the responsibility of the leader to allocate goals. Theories of humanistic organisation support the participation of the subordinates. Advocates of job redesign prefer high subordinate independence, an argument that would seem to prefer self-set goals (Curtis 1994). Articles and literature reviews on participation are laden with sentimentalism and ideology. Several people even think participation is an ethical responsibility (London 2003). Studies report that it is not very essential how a goal is set; the important consideration is that a goal can be determined despite of the technique that is applied. Involvement in goal setting was insignificantly correlated with the degree of effort boost or goal attainment. In reality, involvement in goal setting was discovered to be no more useful than the employment of an allocated goal (Karakowsky & Mann 2008). Latham and Saari believe that when the difficulty of a goal is constant, involvement does not result in greater performance of higher goal commitment than when the goals are allocated. The motivational outcomes of allocated goals are as influential as collaboratively determined goals in creating optimal goal commitment and ensuing performance (Kleinbeck et al. 1990). The extent to which involvement advances self-efficacy and grants individuals the self-esteem to realise goals could be the indirect relationship between participation and performance. There could also be significant advantages of involvement in terms obtaining better insights of how to carry out a difficult task by inviting subordinate contribution, but this is indirectly relevant to the motivational impact of participation (Ogletree et al. 2005). Nevertheless, individuals who have the management’s support set considerably greater goals than individuals who work for uncooperative managers. Support seems to be essential mainly because it gives individuals the esteem pursue greater goals (London 2003). An inaccurate dichotomy is usually offered to management, to apply either a rigid method or a collaborative one to realise outcomes. Goal setting, cooperativeness, and task or job knowledge are not prohibited by a leadership approach that employs a more authoritative style to the process of decision making. Practitioners of behavioural science did not overvalue the capability of choice and involvement in decision making to cultivate commitment and consequent performance, but instead they undervalued the capability of a participative leadership authority and approach on these identical two results (Callaway 1999). According to laboratory findings self-set goals are not always more successful in creating goal commitment or performance boost than other strategies of goal setting. Evidently, several psychologists have been excessively influenced by the idea that choice or self-discipline is favourable (Karakowsky & Mann 2008). The difficulty and specificity of the goal influences performance, regardless if it is allocated or determined collaboratively. Laboratory experiments, taken as a group, confirm that it is not technique by which a goal is determined that is essential, but instead the goal’s level of difficulty. In particular, easy unchallenging goals can lessen the inconsistency in performance, but they are not likely to boost levels of performance (Karakowsky & Mann 2008). Generally, goals that are, or are assumed, as challenging are less prone to be recognised than unchallenging or moderate goals. People normally favour goals that are moderately difficult, but their choices can be affected by earlier allocated goals. Research on goal setting reveals that individuals who exert effort to achieve difficult and specific goals perform more efficiently and effectively on a task than individuals who exert effort for moderate or unchallenging and specific goals, no goals or unclear goals such as ‘do your best’ (Heathfield 2009). Goal theory demonstrates compellingly that there is a direct linear correlation between goal’s difficulty level and performance level. Individuals with challenging goals will perform better in order to be gratified than participants with unchallenging goals. Incomplete success on a difficult goal can result in a much greater performance than complete success on an unchallenging goal (Barton 2000). Self-efficacy Self-efficacy is described as judgment of an individual of how effective procedures of action can be performed in potential circumstances. If goals are self-set, people with greater self-efficacy will determine greater goals. Allocated goals can influence not just individual goals, but self-efficacy as well, even prior to performance. If challenging goals are allocated, individuals will have greater self-efficacy as an outcome of the difficulty. A lot of people feel recognised when the individual allocating the goal has trust in their capability of performing a difficult job. There is a combined influence of difficult goals and self-efficacy on performance (London 2003). Performance is influenced not just by what an individual is attempting to do but also by how self-assured an individual is of achievement. Individuals with greater goals have greater self-efficacy than those with lesser goals: ‘the greater the self-efficacy, the better the performance’ (Kleinbeck et al. 1990: 11). Mediators of Individual Performance Some indirect variables influence the extent to which a goal is effectively accomplished. These variables regulate the firmness of the correlation between action and goals, and they could either enable or contradict goal achievement (Curtis 1994). Capability Lack of capability restricts the capacity of an individual to respond to a difficulty; there are individuals who are unable to perform according to their goals. If they lack the capability, they cannot realise them. Goal setting has a more powerful impact on highly capable than on lowly capable individuals. Moreover, capability has more powerful impacts among high-goal people than among low-goal people. When people are committed to goals that are low, output is restricted to levels less than what is achievable (Bassett 1993). Commitment Difficult goals encourage great performance as long as the person is committed to them. Commitment means “one’s attachment to or determination to reach a goal, regardless of where the goal originated” (Kleinbeck et al. 1990: 12). Expectancy is an important determinant of goal commitment, namely, the belief of an individual that exerting effort will generate a particular performance level and that performance will result in esteemed outcomes (Kleinbeck et al. 1990). Studies have revealed that individuals respond to goals allocated by an authoritative figure. Considerably, individuals attempted to do what was commanded of them in nearly all researches. One of the most influential predictors of goal commitment, actually, is what is called rightful authority or power. Authority, such as a manager, has been adequate to ascertain high goal commitment in the vast majority of studies on goal setting. In other words, goals that are allocated by authorities normally influence the personal goal of an individual. The capability of authority to generate commitment has astonished numerous people. Direct demands for performance is useful in improving performance only if it is not perceived as unnecessary (Ogletree et al. 2005). Complexity of a Task On unchallenging tasks, efforts motivated by goals results directly to improvements in task performance; in difficult tasks, though, effort does not automatically pay off. One should make a decision on where and how to assign task. For instance, goal setting for high performers could not actually result in higher performances unless the employee uses proper work habits and matching technique based on an awareness of the organisational goals (Sagie 1996). Hence, in more difficult tasks, the techniques, plans, and methods applied by the individual fulfil a larger function in the performance of a task than they do in easier tasks. The Impact of Mediators on Performance Levels There are three moderating processes by which goals essentially influence performance: ‘direction of attention, effort and persistence’ (Kleinbeck et al. 1990: 15). They match up to the three features of motivated action: ‘direction (direction of attention), intensity (effort), and duration (persistence)’ (Kleinbeck et al. 1990: 15). People become aware at an early age that they best accomplish task if they focus on it, give effort on it, and persevere. Goals guide attention successfully when they are explicit rather than unclear or wide-ranging since explicit goals control action more intently than wide-ranging goals. Paying attention on the goal also implies that less focus is rewarded to information that is unrelated to goals (Heathfield 2009). Effort relies on the complexity of a goal. Presuming the goal is recognised, the higher the demands, the higher the used up effort. Greater effort normally obtains better outcomes than less effort, provided that capability is sufficient and work techniques are complementary to the task. Provided a goal commitment, individuals will keep on working at the job until the goal is realised (Sagie 1996). Individuals will be motivated to work longer and more persistently for a more challenging goal than for a simpler one, but there can be consequences. Individuals with less demands and no time limit or extended time limit could function more gradually than those with great demands so as to fill available time. The surplus time in such instance, though, is the outcome of a more gradual pace instead of a greater perseverance (Callaway 1999). Conclusions The equivalence of organisational and individual goals influences the performance of tasks and people’s motivation in three ways. First, goals guide the attention of an individual to important outcomes or behaviours. If goals are specific and unambiguous, they concentrate effort and even enhance the manner information is organised. Second, goals boost performance by motivating individuals to exert effort consistent with the difficulty level of a goal. Third, goals inspire people to persevere in their tasks through time. More difficult goals guarantee that people will continue performing well for a longer period of time. References Barton, R., (2000) Organizational Goal Setting and Planning, Murray, KY: Murray State University, http://campus.murraystate.edu/academic/faculty/rb.barton/40mgmt07.ppt#256,1,chapter7. Bassett, G., (1993) The Evolution and Future of High Performance Management Systems, Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Callaway, R. L., (1999) The Realities of Management: A View from the Trenches, Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Curtis, K., (1994) From Management Goal Setting to Organizational Results: Transforming Strategies into Action, Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Heathfield, S. M., (2009) The Darker Side of Goal Setting: Why Goal Setting Fails... About.com, http://humanresources.about.com/cs/strategichr/a/aadark_goals.htm Karakowsky, L. & Mann, S.L., (2008) Setting Goals and Taking Ownership: Understanding the Implications of Participatively Set Goals from a Causal Attribution Perspective, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies , 260+. Kleinbeck, U., Thierry, H., & Hacker, H., (1990) Work Motivation, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. London, M., (2003) Job Feedback: Giving, Seeking, and Using Feedback for Performance Improvement, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ogletree, B. T., Howell, A. & Carpenter, D., (2005) A Procedure for Socially Valid Goal Setting. Intervention in School & Clinic, 76+. Sagie, A., (1996) Effects of Leaders Communication Style and Participatice Goal Setting on Performance and Attitudes, Human Performance , 51. Read More