Setting goals and taking ownership: understanding the implications of participatively set goals from a causal attribution perspective.

The purpose of this theoretical article is to explore the psychological processes underlying employee participation in goal setting. Specifically, it presents a conceptual model that attempts to illustrate the potential pattern of causal self-attributions generated following the performance of participatively set goals. This article addresses two important questions: What are the cognitive consequences for employees who participate in setting their own performance goals? Do employees feel more personally responsible for the outcomes of their job performance if they have participated in the setting of their work goals? Theoretical assertions are summarized in the form of research propositions.

Keywords- goal setting; participation; causal attribution; self-leadership

**********

For many years now, we have witnessed the growing trend toward increasing the level of employee participation in workplace management. Employees throughout organizations are commonly given the ability to participate in the decision-making process, anywhere from problem definition to implementation (Ford & Fottler, 1995). Participation has been defined as joint decision making in which employees are invited to help solve organizational problems (Tjosvold, 1987). There is little doubt that as organizational hierarchies continue to flatten and decision making continues to become decentralized, employees will take on increased levels of responsibilities for their own job and performance (Gebert, Piske, Baga, Lanwehr, & Kearney, 2006).

Among the wealth of concepts reflecting the approach of participatory management is the notion of employee empowerment (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995). The fundamental view of the empowerment movement is that leadership should provide employees with the opportunities for self-regulation and for being active participants (Pearce & Sims, 2002). Self-leadership (Manz, 1986; Manz & Sims, 2001) is typically presented as a mechanism for facilitating empowerment (e.g., Prussia, Anderson, & Manz, 1998; Shipper & Manz, 1992). Self-leadership has been defined as a systematic set of strategies through which individuals influence themselves to reach higher levels of performance or effectiveness (Manz, 1986; Manz & Sims, 2001).

Organizational investments in quality circles, self-managing work teams, sociotechnical work groups, and other participatory techniques clearly illustrate the long-held interest among practitioners toward workplace participation. However, despite the significant interest in participation, a serious debate continues to exist in the academic research regarding the efficacy of participative processes (e.g., Wagner & Gooding, 1987). Consequently, although self-leadership approaches have consistently gained popularity, there is still much debate regarding the extent of their applicability across all types of situations, which raises the general question of whether self-leadership approaches reflect universally applicable theory or, at best, fit only boundary conditions (e.g., Manz & Sims, 2001).

One productive avenue for assessing the utility of self-leadership lies in the area of goal setting. In the workplace, employees may be assigned goals, or they may participate in setting goals. Assigning goals involves assigning both the goal and a method or strategy to achieve the goal. An attempt to convince people that goal attainment is important involves their participating in the setting of those goals. Consistent with Earley and Kanfer's definition (1985), participative goal setting usually consists of the following steps: task presentation and discussion; goal setting; strategy development and evaluation by each individual; and strategy determination. Of course, participation in goal setting can vary from minimal involvement to extensive involvement (as in the case of completely self-set goals).

Consistent with Hinsz, Kalnbach, and Lorentz's observation (1997), whereas goal-setting theory has traditionally focused on assigned goals (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981), subsequent research has examined how participation of the individual in creating a goal (e.g., joint goal setting, management by objectives) can generate important consequences (e.g., Erez, Gopher, & Arzi, 1990; Locke, Latham, & Erez, 1988). Given the growing presence of self-leadership and participative practices across workplaces, it seems prudent to develop an understanding of the impact of participation in the goal-setting process.

The studies that have examined relationships between participation and its outcomes have provided mixed conclusions. Although many studies have reported strong positive associations (e.g., Greller, 1978; Schuler, 1976), others have shown near-zero relationships (e.g., Latham & Yukl, 1976; Rosenbaum & Rosenbaum, 1971). Research conducted in this area has concluded that individuals with participatively set goals have higher levels of performance than do those with assigned goals (Latham, Mitchell, & Dossett, 1978). However, it also suggests that people who participate in setting their work goals simply set higher goals than do those who have goals assigned. In contrast, the research has shown that goals assigned by the "boss" produce significantly higher levels of performance when compared to those of self-set goals (Locke & Latham, 1990a). This research suggests that employee involvement in goal setting may be counterproductive. More recently, however, Latham, Winters, and Locke (1994) found evidence that when the task is complex, participation in decision making leads to higher performance. A series of experiments has since been conducted that showed when goal difficulty is held constant, performance is usually the same, regardless of whether the goal is assigned or set participatively (e.g., Latham, 2004b).

Based on the research cited, it appears that the goal-setting research has far from embraced the notion that employee participation in goal setting can benefit performance. However, this research has largely failed to consider how perceptions subsequent to goal performance can influence longer-term employee performance. That is, perhaps in a "one-shot" scenario, allowing employees to set their own goals produces no marked difference in performance when compared to employees who are assigned goals. However, what happens after the performance? Do employees who owned their goals feel differently than employees do who were simply assigned their goals, following performance success or failure? To our knowledge, no research study has directly addressed this question.

One workplace cognition of particular interest to this article concerns causal attributions that is, how employees attribute the causes of their success or failure on work performance. Individuals do not see outcomes as neutral; rather, they categorize them as a success or failure and then experience positive or negative emotion based on that categorization (Heath, Larrick, & Wu, 1999). Recent research has shown that failure to achieve a goal leads to poorer subsequent performance (Soman & Cheema, 2004). Therefore, a key question that managers need to address is, do employees who actively participate in setting goals more readily accept responsibility for success or failure in the performance of these goals? In other words, do employees who succeed or fail in performing participatively set goals generate a different set of causal self-attributions when compared to employees who perform assigned goals?

This article presents a theoretical framework based on an integration of elements within goal-setting theory and attribution theory. The aim is to offer a model for understanding the implications of participation in the goal-setting process on how people assign causal responsibility for their performance successes and failures. The premise is that the goal-setting method (assigned or participative) influences the nature of the causal attributions of success or failure following goal performance. This model is described below, and research propositions are presented.

The Effects of the Goal-Setting Method on Self-Attributions of Performance Success and Failure

Understanding the impact of participation on the attribution process is clearly essential in assessing the efficacy of participative goal setting. Weiner (1972) asserted that attributions of success to internal factors (ability or effort) maximize positive related affects (e.g., pride, self-esteem) and that attributions of failure to internal factors maximize negative related affects. In addition, the source that the person chooses for the cause of success or failure will have broad implications for his or her sense of efficacy for future task performance and subsequent goal level (Evans, 1986). For example, consistent attributions of failure to internal causes can create self-fulfilling prophecies--people may lose confidence in their ability to perform successfully. This finding emphasizes the importance of understanding the impact of goal-setting methods for causal attributions of success and failure. An examination of this issue is clearly lacking in the research.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Our model (Figure 1) illustrates the potential impact of participation in goal setting on the causal attributions generated subsequent to successful or unsuccessful performance of organizational goals. The model asserts that the goal-setting method (assigned goals or participatively set goals) can have a significant influence on how workers assign personal responsibility (credit or blame) for the causes of success or failure in the performance of goals.