Goal Setting Psychological Strategy - Case Study Example

INTRODUCTION Human potentials are limited by cognitive, behavioral and affective inabilities. They way we see tasks, the perceived influence of the environment and context of our activities and our confidence judgment affect our performance in a work environment, in the field of sport (during practice or competition) or exercise, in a class room and in different areas of endeavor. Researchers have been investigating how these factors can be used to enhance performance. A number of cognitive skills, strategies or methods have been stereotypically used to investigate the effect of various psychological methods on performance. One such method that has received notable attention in the field of psychology is goal setting. We set goals or goals are set for us to achieve certain level of accomplishment or proficiency in a task. The type of goals set, the condition the goals are set and our orientation in the goal setting process affect goal outcomes (performances) differently. We shall in this paper highlight some of the differential effects of goal setting strategy on performance. DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF GOAL SETTING CONDITIONS/TYPES ON PERFROMANCE Goal setting is defined by Locke and Latham (1985) as “a psychological method of enhancing one’s perception of control and increasing intrinsic motivation” Blakeslee and Goff (2007: 291). They argue further that the goal-setting impacts positively on task performance in industrial and organizational settings. Boyce et al have also tested the ecological validity of one of Locke’s early (1968) goal setting thesis, which advanced the argument that “difficult yet specific goals enhance performance” (Boyce et al., 2001:196). Boyce et al noted that only about 70% of researches on goal setting and performance in the area of sport and physical activities support this theory as against 90% in the industrial and organizational setting (188). The work of Mamassis and Doganis (2004: 132) on Mental Training Program (MTP) on young tennis players shows the positive effect of goal setting (one of the 5 strategies used for the MTP) on tennis performance of juniors. The research also shows how the MTP improves self-confidence of the young tennis players and makes them to better manage pre-competitive anxiety (133-5). Blakeslee and Goff (2007: 297) also established the positive impact of goal setting on performance in a nontraditional sport. Their study (though did not find statistically significant relationship among the tested variables) shows that goal setting (one of the 3 psychological strategies used in mental skills training) on equestrian performance. Generally, McCan (2007: 39) puts it: Goal-setting is imperative for teams and players to perform consistently and with confidence. Goal setting, when properly executed, like a great play, is a one-way ticket to build confidence and improve performance and, therefore, outcomes (i.e. winning or feeling great). This positive effect of goal setting is reflected in its acceptability by not only sportsmen but also coaches. Grobbelaar (2007: 34) work shows that all coaches address goal setting skill in their trainings about 44.3 implemented the MST. In fact goal setting together with self confidence and concentration were ranked 1 among the 14 skills measured. Additionally, former Olympic cyclists use goal setting strategy to lessen of exertion pain. These Olympiads use goal setting to keep focus on task thus overcoming pains (Kress and Stalter, 2007: 24) More importantly, Boyce et al. research findings illuminated the effect of different goal setting conditions on tennis performance of college student at the beginning of tennis classes. They investigated the varying effects of three goal setting conditions (self-set, instructor set and “do your best”) on performance and concluded: 1) superiority of self-set goals and instructor-set goals over no goal control groups (“do your best”), and 2) instructor set goals are superior than self set goals (Boyce et al., 2001: 194). They gave 3 advanced reasons for the varying effects of goal setting conditions on tennis performance at the beginning of tennis classes: i) the instructor’s confidence in the ability of the students to achieve goals could have increased students’ self-confidence in what they are doing; ii) instructor’s assignment of difficult goals could have increased students’ “level of intrinsic motivation to accomplish tasks”; and iii) goals assigned by the instructor had set a performance standard that could have made the students to their self-satisfaction (197). It is clear from these findings that the performance of individuals can be improved using goals set by someone or institution believed to have control, authority or superiority in knowledge, skills or experience. Such goals could be seen as difficult yet they are cognitively (and competitively, if in a group) pursued. To get the best out of individuals or groups in organizational or sport settings, instructor set goals strategy should be employed. Getz and Rainey (2002: 38) have also investigated the differential effect of rigid (goals that stated in percentage and remain trial after trial) and flexible (goals that are adjusted after trials) goals on performance. Despite sample bias and, which partly explains why their findings were not statistically significant, their findings show the superiority of flexible goals over rigid goals. The researchers tried to manipulate the goal setting condition by using period set for goals to be achieved under a controlled social comparison condition. Their findings shows sportsmen that set flexible short-term goals perform better than those that set rigid short and long term goals. However, other factors need to be considered to understand the differential effects of different goal conditions on performance. Jackson, Ashford and Norsworthy (2006: 64) work provided an explanation on how intentional conditions of individuals in a sport setting interact with situational (perceived pressure) and dispositional (self-consciousness) factors in the performance process. DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF GOAL ORIENTATION ON PERFORMANCE Despite the established superiority of instructor set goals, self-set goals impact positively on task performance. The extent of such impact depends on goal orientation of individuals. Brealnd and Donovan (2005: 23) defined goal orientation as “the goals that are implicitly pursued by individuals while attempting to attain or achieve a certain level of performance.” Goal orientation is taken as an individual difference variable used in explaining the self-regulatory process in the performance settings. Furthermore, research has shown that there are 2 independent types of goals that influence, differently, individuals’ affective, cognitive and behavioral responses to task performance conditions (Dweck, 1990). Consequently, Performance Goal Orientation (PGO) was distinguished from Learning Goal Orientation (LGO). In the case of PGO, an individual adopts “implicit goals” and strives to demonstrate his/her competence in handling a specific task. His/her task performance is affected by his/her fear of failure thus s/he tries to avoid negative judgement of his/her competence. In contrast, an individual with LGO strives to improve his/her understanding of something new, develop new skills, increase his/her level of competence in a given task or achievement of mastery (Breland and Donovan, 24: and Diefendorff 2001: 379, Klein and Lee, 2006: 44). Such an individual’s performance is not affected by the fear of failure but rather his/her cognitive ability is based on self-referenced standards. These 2 goal orientations impact differently on individuals’ performance vis-à-vis the goal level. Dweck (1986) showed that individuals “high in LGO are able to establish and maintain challenging goals, whereas individuals high in PGO fail to establish challenging goals” (Diefendorff, 2001: 379). This may be as a result of 1) the fact that LGO is associated with “incremental implicit theory”—individual’s ability increases with increase in effort and persistence—while PGO is associated with “entity implicit theory”—ability is seen as fixed and difficult to develop; 2) as Duda and Nicholls (1992) pointed out, “[LGO] is associated with a belief that effort is a primary determinant of success, whereas a [PGO] is associated with a belief that high ability is a primary determinant of success”; and 3) and in the event individuals are confronted with negative performance feedback, those that are high in LGO view such condition as requiring increased self-development for task to be accomplished whereas those that are high in PGO are drown in the vortex of illusive thinking of such a condition being a judgment of their competence and worth. It worth noting that contrary to the general perception that PGO is not conducive for motivation and performance, individuals with high PGO (or PGO environment) can in the real sense enhance self-efficacy, goal establishment, and subsequent performance depending on the circumstances. Individuals with high PGO, as noted by Button et al. (1996) and Farr et al. (1993), i) “pay close attention to deadlines”, ii) “demonstrate a concern with meeting the standards of supervisors”, and iii) “focus on achieving task competence relatively quickly” Breland and Donovan (2005: 50). Researchers have gone a step further to distinguish between 2 dimensions of PGOs: proving (an individual demonstrates competence to gain favorable judgment and avoiding) and avoiding (an individual strives to hide incompetence in order to avoid negative judgment). A number of researchers have noted that the avoiding dimension of PGO that a detrimental effect on self-regulation, task performance, learning strategies, intrinsic motivation and illness (Cron et al, 2005: 58). Also the distinction made by Nicholls (1989): between state of task involvement and state of ego involvement in a sport setting is in line with the LGO and PGO distinction (Harwood, Cumming and Fletcher, 2004:319). Individuals with task-involves goals approach tasks in similar way as those with LGO whereas those with ego-involved goals approach tasks as those with PGO. Harwood, Cumming and Fletcher (2004: 329) have however shown that a combination of both goal states (orientations) in a sporting environment affects the use of psychological skills in achieving tasks and hence performance. Their investigation shows that young athletes with high task/moderate ego profile use goal setting strategies (as well as self talk and imagery) both in practice and competition. This means that individuals with good combination of the 2 goal orientations can perform creditably well. Further research on goal orientation has revealed another distinction between goal orientation taken as a dispositional trait variable and goal orientation influenced by characteristics of performance environment, State Goal Orientation (SGO). This distinction has introduced yet an individual difference variable that mediates between goal setting/orientation and performance. Self-efficacy is simply defined as “an individuals belief that he or she can perform a particular task (Bandura. 1991)”. This implies, as Breland and Donovan (2005: 49) argued, that goal orientation does not have direct influence on performance, and as they stressed further, there is no direct link between dispositional goal orientation and self-efficacy. They argued that “dispositional goal orientation only exerts an indirect impact on self-efficacy through its influence on the development of SGOs”. This implies that task performance depends to an extent on the performance environment and not only individual cognitive ability. In a like manner, Diefendorff (2001) used the concept of action-state orientation to bring out the mediating role of other (individual difference) variables on performance. He distinguished the different phases of the performance process by adopting Lewin et al (1944) distinctions: goal setting (“involves contemplating the reasons for pursuing an activity and results in the selection of a goal”) and goal striving (“involves task implementation issues such as initiating action, staying focused, and persisting despite distractions or set-backs”). Taken action-state orientation as an orientation that “reflects individual differences in sell-regulatory processes that occur during goal pursuit” and goal orientation as “the type of goal individuals adopt when approaching a task, either learning or performance” (375), Diefendorff (2001) concluded that goal orientation has its effects on goal setting while action-state orientation had its effect on goal striving (392). Conclusion Job behaviors reflective of workers performance and satisfaction can be influenced using goal setting psychological strategy. Human resource mangers, teachers in class, coaches, should use the appropriate psychological strategy to make performers optimally utilize his or her cognitive resources in self-regulation of performance. REFERENCE Bandura, A. (1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman Blakesle, Marsha L. and Goff, Dennis M. (2007) “The Effects of A Mental Skills Training Package on Equestrians” The Sport Psychologist No. 21. Boyce, B. A., Wayda, V. K., Johnston, T., Bunker, L. K. and Eliot, J.. (2001) “The Effect of Three Types of Goal Setting Conditions on Tennis-Performance: A Field-Based Study” Journal of Teaching in Physical Education No. 20. Breland, B. T. and Donovan, J. I. (2005) “The Role of State Goal Orientation in Goal Establishment Process” Human Performance 18(1). Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E. and Zajac, D. M. (1996) Goal Oreintation in Organizaitgonal Research: A Conceptual nd Emprical Foundation Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes No. 67 Cron, W. L., Slocum, John W., VandeWalle, D., and Fu, F. Q. (2005) “The Role of Goal Orientation on Negative Emotions and Goal Setting When Initial Performance Falls Short of One’s Performance Goal” Human Performance 18(1). Duda, J. L. and Nicholls, J.G. (1992) Dimensions of Achievemnt Motivation in Schoolwork and Sport Journal of Educational Psychology 84(3). Dweck, C. S. (1989) Motivation. In A. Lesgold and R. Glaser (Eds.) Foundation for Psychological Education. Hillside, NJ: Erbam associates Inc. Farr, J. L., Hofman, D.A. and Ringenbach, K.L (1993) Goal Oreintation and Action Control Theory: Implication for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. In C. Cooper and I. Robertson (Eds.) International Review of Industrial and Organizaitonal Psychology No. 8 Getz, G. E. and Rainey, D. W. (2002) “Flexibility Short-Term Goals and Basketball Shoting Performance”. Journal of Sport Behavior 24(1). Grobbelaar, H. W. (2007) “A Survey of South African Provincial Netball Coaches’ Opinions, Abilities and Limitations Regarding Mental Skills Training” South African Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education and Recreation 29(2). Harwood, C., Cumming J. and Fletcher, D. (2004) “Motivational Profile and Psychological Skills Use Within Elite Youth Sport” Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 2004. Jackson, R. C., Ashford, K. J. and Norsworhty, G. (2006) “Attentional Focus, Dispositional Reinvestment and Skilled Motor Performance Under Pressure” Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology No. 28. Klein, H. and Lee, S.. (2006) “The Effects of Personality on Learning: The Mediating Role of Goal Setting” Human Performance 19(1). Lane, A. M., Harwood, C., Terry, P. C. and Karageorghis, C. I. (2004) “Confirmatory Factors Analysis of The Test of Performance Strategies (TOPS) Among Adolescent Athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences No. 22. Lewin, K., D., T., Festinger, L. and Sears, P.S. (1944). Level of Aspiration. In J. McV Hunt (Ed.). Persnolity and The Behavior of Disorder Vol. 4 New York: Ronalo. Locke, E. A. (1968) Toward A Theory of Task Motivaiton Incentives Organizaitonal Behavior and Human Performance 3 Locke, E. A. and Latham, G.P (1998) The Application of Goal Setting to Sports Journal of Sport Psychology 7(3). Mamassis, G. and Goanis, G. (2004) “The Effects of A Mental Training Program on Juniors Pre-Competitive Anxiety, Self-Confidence and Tennis Performance” Journal of Applied Sport Psychology No. 16. McCann, Erika. (2007) “Why Goal Setting Works” Soccer Journal, July/August. Nicholls, J. G. (1989) The Competitieve Ethos and Democratic Education. Cmabridge: Harvard University Press. Read More