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.
According to the model, the impact of participation in goal setting
depends on the outcomes of two attribution paths: first, the
expectation-based path, the extent to which beliefs about task
difficulty and perceived ability are altered because of participation in
determining the nature of the goal; second, the ego-based path, the
extent to which ego involvement is triggered because of participation in
determining the nature of the goal. As shown in the figure, each path
may stimulate different cognitions with regard to participation in the
goal-setting process. Before explaining the dynamics of each path, it is
useful to consider the bases for constructing this framework and the
concepts upon which the two paths of the framework are based.
Connections Between Participative Goal Setting and Causal
Attributions
Goal-setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1990a) has achieved
predominant status as a theory of motivation, given the consistent
support that it has received as a successful model of work performance.
Goal-setting theory asserts that personal goals and standards of
performance play a critical role in the self-regulation of behavior.
According to this model, specific and challenging goals enhance task
performance when the performer is committed to the goals and possesses
self-efficacy that he or she can attain the goal (cf., Locke &
Latham, 1990b). These findings have been confirmed in over 500 studies
(Seijts, Latham, Tasa, & Latham, 2004). The goal-performance
relationship has been shown to be strongest when goal commitment is
present, which is increased through the importance of the outcomes and
the employees' belief that they can attain the goal (i.e.,
self-efficacy; Locke & Latham, 2002).
As suggested by Latham and Locke (in press), goal setting affects
not only a person's performance but one's subjective
well-being. This is evidenced by recent meta-analytic findings that goal
attainment is associated with increases in positive affect and with
decreases in negative affect (Koestner, Lekes, Powers, & Chicoine,
2002) and by findings in the self-regulation literature (e.g., Ilies
& Judge, 2005; Sonnentag, 2002).
Research in goal setting has extensively explored the effects of
the goal-setting method (i.e., participative versus assigned goals) on
task performance (e.g., Latham & Saari, 1979; Locke, 1968),
motivation (e.g., Chang & Lorenzi, 1983; Shalley & Oldham, 1985;
Shalley, Oldham, & Porac, 1987), cognition (e.g., Campbell &
Gingrich, 1986; Latham & Saari, 1979), affect (e.g., Ivancevich,
1977), and commitment (e.g., Hollenbeck & Klein, 1987; Locke et al.,
1988). Locke's theory of task motivation (1968) suggests that
participation in goal setting facilitates task performance through its
mediating effects on cognitive processes. Specifically, it is the
cognitive evaluation and interpretation of participation that may
generate goal aspirations leading to task performance (Locke, 1968). The
concern of attribution theory with interpretation and evaluation can
contribute to an understanding of the role of cognition in Locke's
model (1968; see also, Chacko & McElroy, 1983). However, little
research attention has been given to the relationship of goal setting
and attribution theory.
Donovan and Williams (2003) examined the degree to which causal
attribution moderates the relationship between goal-performance
discrepancies and goal revision. They found that individuals who were
faced with large discrepancies between goals and performance and who
attributed their performance to stable causes tended to engage in goal
revision to a greater extent than did those faced with similar
discrepancies who attributed performance to unstable causes. Although
this study examined the relationship between goal setting and
attributions, there is a need to fully delineate the relationship
between the goal-setting method and causal attributions.
Though not specific to the area of goal setting, numerous scholars
have drawn attention to the importance of considering the role of
attributions within the broader class of variables that deal with
motivation to perform in the workplace (e.g., Corr & Gray, 1996;
Evans, 1986; Harvey, Martinko, & Gardiner, 2006; Seligman &
Schulman, 1986). Although people usually increase their goals after a
success (Locke, Frederick, Lee, & Bobko, 1984) and lower them after
a failure, these shifts occur only when particular kinds of attributions
are made (Weiner, 1972). In his integrated model of motivation, Evans
(1986) indicated that when an achievement task is completed, final
feedback is provided, and the individual compares performance against
the initial goal. It is at this stage that the major attributional
processes occur (Weiner, 1972). When the person compares performance
against a goal or standard, he or she faces two possible outcomes:
success or failure (Evans, 1986). According to attribution theory, it is
at this point that the person will engage in a search for causes of the
success or failure.
The research in attribution theory has found evidence that people
do engage in a process that involves the analysis of achievement
outcomes and the assignment of causes to these outcomes (e.g., Donovan
& Williams, 2003; Thomas & Mathieu, 1994; Weiner, 1986). Heider
(1958) asserted that people must integrate the cues linked to outcomes
as a means to infer the factors that generated them. Weiner et al.
(1971) elaborated Heider's model (1958) to consider
achievement-related situations. They posited that achievement behavior
is cognitively mediated by attributions of causality to one or more of
the following four factors: level of ability, amount of effort expended,
level of difficulty of the task, and amount of luck. These factors have
commonly been classified along two separate dimensions: One, ability and
effort are viewed as internal attributions; two, task difficulty and
luck are considered external attributions (Weiner, 1986; Weiner et al.,
1971). Recent research has found that the resulting perception of
causality influences future behavior (e.g., Campbell & Martinko,
1998; Duval & Silvia, 2002; Gibson & Schroeder, 2003; Swift
& Campbell, 1998). Below, we consider sources of causality stemming
from fundamentally different paths: an expectations-based attribution
path and an ego-based attribution path.
Expectations-Based Attribution Path
According to attribution theory, people rely on social and
situational information cues to assign causes for performance outcome
and behavior (Heider, 1958; Jones & Davis, 1965; Kelley, 1967). The
research has supported the notion of performance information as the
primary cue used to arrive at this cognitive evaluation. For example,
Staw (1975) found that respondents used knowledge of performance as a
cue through which they attributed characteristics to themselves, to
their work groups, and to their organization. However, the research has
identified other factors that can serve as cues in the search for causes
of performance success or failure.
The expectation of success or failure on a task has been viewed as
the belief in one's ability in relation to task difficulty,
intended effort, or anticipated luck (Weiner et al., 1971). Weiner
(1974, 1979) asserted that expectations of task performance will
influence subsequent attributions of success or failure. Additional
research has supported the notion that expectations of performance may
be a more critical factor in subsequent attributions of success or
failure than the actual performance (e.g., Feather & Simon, 1971).
Evidence for the existence of this phenomenon can be found elsewhere in
the literature (e.g., Deaux, 1976; Regan, Straus, & Fazio, 1974).
In their review of the literature, Kelley and Michela (1980)
observed that expectations of success or failure can be classified into
ability- and task-based expectations; that is, expectations of success
or failure may arise through beliefs about the ability of the actor to
perform or through beliefs about the goal's difficulty. The
sections below provide a number of propositions concerning the impact of
the goal-setting method on these two types of expectations, along with
the consequences for the causal attribution process.
Expectations based on perceived task and goal difficulty. Task
achievement can be viewed as synonymous with goal achievement--that is,
attainment of a certain standard of proficiency on a given task (Locke
et al., 1981). Similarly, task difficulty can be considered synonymous
with goal difficulty. As the level of task complexity increases, goal
attainment becomes dependent on one's ability to discover
appropriate task strategies. Given that people vary in their abilities
to do this, the effect size for goal setting is smaller on complex tasks
rather than on simple ones (Locke & Latham, 2002). Recent
goal-setting research has determined that for a complex task, setting a
learning goal, which focuses on knowledge or skill acquisition, leads to
higher performance than does setting a performance (outcome) goal (Locke
& Latham, 2002; Seijts & Latham, 2005; Winters & Latham,
1996). In other words, when people lack the necessary requisite
knowledge, a specific difficult learning goal leads to higher
performance than does a specific difficult outcome goal or the urging of
people to "do their best" (Seijts & Latham, 2001). In
addition, learning goals increase self-efficacy (Seijts & Latham,
2001). A person's success in achieving a particular goal is
therefore affected by the difficulty of the task or goal and by the type
of goal set (learning versus outcome).
As indicated, expectations of success or failure on a task are
related to perceptions of the task difficulty. It makes intuitive sense
that people tend to expect to succeed on tasks that they perceive to be
easy rather than on tasks that they perceive as being difficult to
perform. The question is, how does participation in goal setting affect
perceptions of task difficulty?
Chacko, Stone, and Brief (1979) suggested that high participation
or involvement in goal setting generates feelings of control and
influence over the goal and consequently encourages perceptions of
reduced goal difficulty. The results of a series of laboratory studies
conducted by Chacko and McElroy (1983) provided support for the view
that the perceived control (choice) over task difficulty is positively
related to the level of participation in goal setting. That is,
perceptions of choice (control) over task difficulty were shown to
increase from assigned to participatively set goals. Furthermore,
Luginbuhl (1971) suggested that the perceived level of choice or control
over task or goal difficulty generates expectations of successful
performance; that is, participants who possessed a high sense of control
over goal difficulty expected to succeed. The positive outcome
expectancy of attaining a goal that is participatively set is almost
always uniformly high (Latham, 2004a).
What are the implications of these findings for causal attributions
of success in performing a goal? Luginbuhl (1971) and Chacko and McElroy
(1983) found that participants who had choice on a task or goal (i.e.,
participatively set goals) more often attributed successful performance
to external factors (task difficulty) as opposed to internal factors
(effort or ability). Participants in the participatively set goal
conditions felt less personally responsible for their performance than
did participants in the assigned goal conditions because they believed
that they had essentially reduced the goal or task difficulty through
their involvement in setting the goal. Consequently, the increase in
perceived level of choice or control over task difficulty generated
expectations of success with the resulting pattern of causal
attributions. However, what happens when unexpected failure occurs?
Although Chacko et al. (1979) did not address the issue, it is important
to consider the implications of failure on causal attributions under
participative versus assigned goal conditions. Based on the same
reasoning, one argument is that individuals involved in participatively
set goals are less likely to expect to fail because of their perception
of the relatively lower task difficulty (arising from control in setting
the task or goal). Consequently, these people are less likely to blame
their failure (unexpected failure) on task difficulty. Based on this
reasoning, it is more likely that sources of failure would be assigned
to internal causes (lack of ability or effort) for those who
participated in setting the goal. This assertion, along with the series
of arguments discussed above, can be summarized as follows:
Proposition 1: The individual's perceived level of control
(choice) over goal difficulty is positively related to his or her level
of participation in the goal setting.
Proposition 2: The individual's perceived expectation of
success is positively related to his or her perceived level of control
(choice) in the goal setting.
Proposition 3: Attribution of success to external causes is
positively related to the level of participation in the goal setting.
Proposition 4: Attribution of failure to internal causes is
positively related to the level of participation in the goal setting.
Expectations based on perceived ability (self-efficacy). What
impact does participation in goal setting have on the individual's
perceived ability to perform successfully? Latham and Saari (1979)
suggested that participation in goal setting may lead to an increased
understanding (cognitive element) of how to attain the goal and thereby
improve performance. Campbell and Gingrich (1986) found similar
beneficial effects of participation on performance via the cognitive
processes in participative goal setting. The ability of people to
develop an understanding of the task or goal under participative
conditions facilitates improvements in self-efficacy--the belief in the
ability to succeed at the task--which can in turn create expectations of
success in the task (Bandura, 1977, 1982).
The notion that participation in goal setting can enhance
self-efficacy suggests that people who are engaged in goal setting have
higher expectations of succeeding in the performance of the goal or
task. Feather and Simon (1971) found that expectations of success that
stem from a person's self-confidence in the ability to perform
generate internal attributions of (expected) success and external
attributions for (unexpected) failure. Based on this view, participation
in goal setting should encourage internal attributions of success
through the enhancement of perceived ability to perform (expected
success based on ability). Furthermore, participation in goal setting
should encourage external attributions for failure (task difficulty or
bad luck) given that this would be an unexpected outcome. This
assertion, along with the series of arguments discussed above, can be
summarized as follows:
Proposition 5: Expectation of success, based on perceived ability,
is positively related to the level of participation in goal setting.
Proposition 6: Attribution of success to internal causes is
positively related to the level of participation in the goal setting.
Proposition 7: Attribution of failure to external causes is
positively related to the level of participation in the goal setting.
Ego-Based Attribution Path
People often attribute their successful performance to internal
factors (ability, effort), whereas external factors (task difficulty,
bad luck) tend to be assigned as causes of failure (Weiner, 1972).
Consistent with Miller's observation (1976), much of the research
has explained this attribution tendency through the concept of "ego
defense"--that is, self-serving biases (e.g., Heider, 1958; Kelley,
1967). Empirical support has been received for this ego-based
attribution (e.g., Luginbuhl, Crowe, & Kahan, 1975; Miller, 1976;
Weiner & Kukla, 1970; Wilson & Levine, 1997). The ego-based
origin of internal attributions of success and external attributions of
failure has been supported in a number of research efforts that
identified the protection of self-esteem as the source of such
attributions (Feather, 1969; Frieze & Weiner, 1971). This research
suggests that the level of ego involvement in performing a task or goal
will influence the extent to which ego-based attributions arise. Miller
(1976) found that people engage in more self-protective attributions as
the level of ego involvement increases. This relationship of ego
involvement with self-protective attributions has received support in a
number of other studies (e.g., Dosset & Greenberg, 1981; Luginbuhl
et al., 1975). The key question then becomes, how does participation in
goal setting affect the individual's level of ego involvement? This
issue is addressed below.
Goal acceptance, goal commitment, and ego involvement. What
implications, if any, are there for participation in goal setting for
the ego-based tendency in causal attributions? Specifically, how does
participation in goal setting influence the level of ego involvement in
performing the goal or task? To address this issue, it is first
necessary to understand several key outcomes of participation for the
individual, as identified by the research.
There has been support for the beneficial effects of participation
in goal setting related to motivation and goal acceptance and
commitment. Erez and Arad (1986) identified several motivational and
cognitive factors that contributed to performance quality in
participative goal conditions as opposed to assigned goal conditions.
The social factor of group discussion influenced goal acceptance in the
participative goal condition. Goal acceptance involves a person's
agreement to commit himself or herself to a goal (Locke et al., 1981).
The related concept of goal commitment has been defined as the
determination to try to attain a goal or to persist in trying, whether
the goal is specified or not (Locke et al., 1981). There has since been
convergence between the use of the terms goal acceptance and goal
commitment; in fact, goal commitment has emerged as the more inclusive
of the two constructs (Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck, & Alge, 1999).
Support for the beneficial effects of participation on goal acceptance
and commitment can be found elsewhere in the literature (e.g., Earley
& Kanfer, 1985;
Hollenbeck & Brief, 1987). Furthermore, as the discussion below
indicates, goal acceptance and goal commitment have important
implications for ego involvement.
Dossett and Greenberg (1981) applied attribution theory to examine
the effects of participative and assigned goals on supervisor
evaluations of the employee. Although the study is concerned with the
observer as opposed to self-attributions, the results have implications
for the latter concern. The results indicate that supervisors
experienced highest levels of ego involvement (or hedonic relevance)
when they felt most responsible for controlling or setting the
employees' goals (assigned goal condition). These findings suggest
that ego involvement, or the perceived level of responsibility for the
outcomes, increases for the individual as his or her perceived control
in setting the goal increases. Burger (1989) defined control as the
perceived ability to significantly alter events. Shalley et al. (1987)
found that participants in the participative goal condition reported a
higher experience of personal control over the goal. Increases in the
amount of control may be accompanied by an increase in self-presentation
concerns (e.g., Arkin, 1981). That is, in theory, perceived
responsibility for outcomes increases with perceived influence in the
situation. Based on this reasoning, ego involvement (perceived
responsibility for achieving the goal) should increase with increased
participation in setting the goal (from assigned through participative
to self-set goal conditions). Of course, if people do not accept the
goal or are not committed to achieving the goal, there will be little or
no ego involvement. As mentioned earlier, the research has indicated
that participation in goal setting increases goal acceptance and
commitment (e.g., Earley & Kanfer, 1985; Hollenbeck & Brief,
1987). A recent meta-analysis has confirmed previous findings that the
expectancy and attractiveness of goal attainment are highly related to
goal commitment (Klein et al., 1999). Consequently, the impact of
participation on ego involvement will be further enhanced through the
elements of goal acceptance and goal commitment. Clearly, a person who
has accepted the goal and is committed to achieving it will exhibit a
higher level of ego involvement when compared to people who have not
accepted the goal or are less committed to achieving the goal.
Given the relationship of ego involvement and participation in goal
setting, it is evident that ego-based attributions (i.e., attributions
of success to internal causes, attributions of failure to external
causes) will increase as the level of participation in the goal setting
increases. This assertion, along with the series of arguments discussed
above, can be summarized as follows:
Proposition 8: The level of ego involvement, or perceived
influence, in the performance of a goal is positively related to the
level of participation in the goal setting.
Proposition 9: Ego involvement is positively related to the level
of goal commitment and acceptance (which, in turn, is positively related
to the level of participation in goal setting).
Proposition 10: Attributions of success to internal causes will
increase as the level of participation in goal setting increases.
Proposition 11: Attributions of failure to external causes will
increase as the level of participation in goal setting increases.
Summary and Future Research Directions
The concepts of employee empowerment and self-leadership have been
around for some time now, and certainly, the Vend toward participatory
management continues to grow unabated. However, there remains doubt
regarding the applicability of employee participation and
self-leadership across different business contexts. The ability to
participate in developing work agendas and work goals can have a
particularly powerful impact on employee's attitudes and behavior
at work. However, relatively little attention has been given to an
understanding of the impact of participative goal setting on employee
cognition.
The aim of this article is to draw attention to the impact of
self-leadership, specifically with regard to goal setting. Our article
attempts to explore the cognitive impact of participative goal setting
on employees. Two fundamental questions are addressed: What effect might
participation in goal setting have on the cognitions of employees
following success or failure in their job performance? Do employees feel
more personally responsible for the outcomes of their performance if
they have participated in the setting of their work goals?
To address the above questions, we present a conceptual framework
or model that draws on elements of goal-setting theory and causal
attribution theory. The model illustrates the potential influence of
participative goal setting on causal self-attributions of performance
success or failure. The attribution paths presented in the model, along
with the research propositions, are intended to serve as a guide for
future empirical research. Given that practically no research has
addressed this issue, our hope is that this model will stimulate
researchers to fully explore the cognitive impact of employee
involvement in goal setting.
Future research efforts should include an examination of how the
paths or cues interact within the framework presented here. For example,
the predicted pattern of attributions indicated by the propositions for
the cues based on ability and task difficulty are conflicting. The
salience of either cue will determine its power in influencing the
ultimate pattern of attributions. Factors such as self-efficacy could
play an important role in this context: People with a high level of
self-efficacy may tend to take credit for successful performance
(internal attributions) regardless of their perceptions of the
difficulty of the goal or task. Others may perceive their involvement in
setting the goal as the most salient cue (with the accompanying
perception that goal difficulty has been reduced), and consequently,
they will generate a pattern of attributions consistent with this
perception. Clearly, a consideration of both sources of expectation is
important; however, the actual determinant of attributions will depend
on the salience of each cue to the individual.
In addition to the potential strength of cues within a path,
another question that must be explored is, will the pattern of
attributions generated by the expectations-based path or the ego-based
path dominate? The proposed model acknowledges that these competing cues
do exist and will interact to determine the subsequent pattern of
attributions. Each element can be considered a cue that individuals will
process to varying degrees as a source for generating causal
explanations of performance. Consistent with Evans's observation
(1986), the research has suggested that it is the salience of the
personal and situational cues that affect the subsequent attributions.
Based on this view, goal-setting conditions (i.e., participation in goal
setting) can affect the salience of these different informational cues
and will consequently influence the nature of the attributions generated
following performance of the goal. For example, consider an individual
whose performance on a participatively set goal has important
consequences. This individual will likely be encouraged to engage in
ego-based attributions subsequent to the performance of this goal (based
on the framework described above). However, an individual may be
required to perform a relatively unimportant assigned goal. In this
case, the elements of the ego-based path are not relatively salient to
the individual, and consequently, causal attributions will be largely
based on the individual's expectations of success or failure (the
expectations-based path). Furthermore, if the goal is easy or highly
difficult, then attributions will be based on perceived task difficulty.
Individual characteristics (e.g., self-efficacy, need for
achievement, locus of control, self-esteem) will influence which
attribution path is salient. Many years ago, Chacko et al. (1979)
acknowledged that such characteristics may influence the generation of
attributions regardless of the goal-setting context. For example,
Rotter's notion of locus of control (1966) referred to a
personality characteristic representing the individual's perception
of his or her degree of control over the environment. People with
internal locus of control tend to attribute causes to internal factors,
whereas people with external locus of control tend to attribute causes
to external factors (Rotter, 1966). These notions need to be revisited
in light of the lack of knowledge regarding participation in goal
setting. For example, if the individual possesses very high or very low
self-efficacy regarding performance on the task, then a pattern of
attributions based on perceived ability (efficacy) can likely dominate.
Future studies should examine the influence of these individual factors
on the perceived salience of the paths or cues, as well as the
interactive effects of individual characteristics with the goal-setting
method (assigned and participative).
As our initial discussion suggests, causal attributions generated
subsequent to performance success or failure can influence a
person's future success or failure in the performance of a goal.
Consequently, future studies should attempt to expand our framework and
examine the impact of these cognitions on subsequent levels of
performance and levels of goals that employees set. Our framework is
based on a snap-shot perspective; that is, it considers the impact of
goal setting on causal attributions after the first round of performance
has occurred. However, what impact will these attributions have on goal
aspirations and performance over repeated trials? It is important to
consider the impact of these dynamics over a longer period--that is,
examining the impact on subsequent goal setting and performance results.
The reasons or attributions for the performers' success or failure
will likely have a significant impact on the goals that they elect to
perform in the next round.
Clearly then, it is critical for research to fully examine the
impact of goal-setting methods on causal attributions. This is one
important step toward assessing the efficacy of participation in the
workplace. We know that workplace participation is here to stay.
Consequently, it is critical that we rigorously study the impact of
participation on such areas as employee cognition. If we want employees
to take ownership of their work, we need to understand how that process
occurs. Examining causal attributions and their role in participative
goal setting is a critically important component in understanding this
process.
Authors' Note: Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Leonard Karakowsky, School of Administrative Studies,
York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario, M3J 1P3, Canada;
e-mail: lkarakow@yorku.ca.
References
Arkin, R. (1981). Self-presentation styles. In J. T. Tedeschi
(Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological research
(pp. 311-333). New York: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Towards a unifying theory of
behavioural change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency.
American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
Burger, J. (1989). Negative reaction to increases in personal
control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 246-256.
Campbell, D., & Gingrich, K. (1986). The interactive effects of
task complexity and participation on task performance: A field
experiment. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 38,
162-180.
Campbell, C., & Martinko, M. (1998). An integrative
attributional perspective of empowerment and learned helplessness: A
multi-method field study. Journal of Management, 24, 173-200.
Chacko, T., & McElroy, J. (1983). The cognitive component in
Locke's theory of goal setting: Evidence for a causal attribution
interpretation. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 104-I 18.
Chacko, T., Stone, T., & Brief, A. (1979). Participation in
goal setting: An attributional analysis. Academy of Management Review,
4, 433-438.
Chang, G., & Lorenzi, P. (1983). The effects of participative
versus assigned goal setting on intrinsic motivation. Journal of
Management, 9, 55-64.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment
process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review,
13, 471-482.
Corr, P. J., & Gray, J. A. (1996). Attributional style as a
personality factor in insurance sales performance in the UK. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 83-87.
Deaux, K. (1976). Sex: A perspective on the attribution process. In
J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. E Kidd (Eds.), New directions in
attribution research (Vol. 1, pp. 335-352). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Donovan, J. J., & Williams, K. J. (2003). Missing the mark:
Effects of time and causal attributions on goal revision in response to
goal-performance discrepancies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,
379-390.
Dossett, D., & Greenberg, C. (1981). Goal setting and
performance evaluation: An attributional analysis. Academy of Management
Journal, 24, 767-779.
Duval, T., & Silvia, P. (2002). Self-awareness, probability of
improvement, and the self-serving bias. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 82, 49-61.
Earley, P., & Kanfer, R. (1985). The influence of component
participation and role models on goal acceptance, goal satisfaction, and
performance. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 36,
378-390.
Erez, M., & Arad, R. (1986). Participative goal setting:
Social, motivational and cognitive factors. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71, 591-597.
Erez, M., Gopher, D., & Arzi, N. (1990). Effects of goal
difficulty, self-set goals, and monetary rewards on dual task
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47,
247-270.
Evans, M. (1986). Organizational behaviour: The central role of
motivation. Yearly Review of Management of the Journal of Management,
12, 203-222.
Feather, N. (1969). Attribution of responsibility and valence of
success and failure in relation to initial confidence and task
performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 129-144.
Feather, N., & Simon, J. (1971). Causal attributions for
success and failure in relation to expectations of success based upon
selective or manipulative control. Journal of Personality, 39, 527-541.
Ford, R. C., & Fottler, M. D. (1995). Empowerment: A matter of
degree. Academy of Management Executive, 9, 21-31.
Frieze, J., & Weiner, B. (1971). Cue utilization and
attributional judgement of success and failure. Journal of Personality,
39, 591-601.
Gebert, D., Piske, R., Baga, T., Lanwehr, R., & Kearney, E.
(2006). Empowerment in the context of transformational change: A study
of acquisitions and privatizations in Eastern Europe. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12, 101-119.
Gibson, D., & Schroeder, S. (2003). Who ought to be blamed? The
effect of organizational roles on blame and credit attributions.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 14, 95-117.
Greller, M. (1978). The nature of subordinate participation in the
appraisal interview. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 646-658.
Harvey, E, Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2006). Promoting
authentic behavior in organizations: An attributional perspective.
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12, 1-12.
Heath, C., Larrick, R. E, & Wu, G. (1999). Goals as reference
points. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 79-109.
Heider, E (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New
York: John Wiley.
Hinsz, V., Kalnbach, L., & Lorentz, N. (1997). Using
judgemental anchors to establish challenging self-set goals without
jeopardizing commitment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 71,287-308.
Hollenbeck, J. R., & Brief, A. E (1987). The effects of
individual differences and goal origin on goal setting and performance.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40, 392-414.
Hollenbeck, J., & Klein, H. (1987). Goal commitment and the
goal setting process: Problems, prospects, and proposals for future
research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 212-220.
Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2005). Goal regulation across time:
The effects of feedback and affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
453-467.
Ivancevich, J. (1977). Different goal setting treatments and their
effects on performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management
Journal 20, 406-419.
Jones, E., & Davis, K. (1965). From acts to disposition. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp.
219-266). New York: Academic Press.
Kelley, H. (1967). The process of causal attribution. American
Psychologist, 28, 107-128.
Kelley, H., & Michela, J. (1980). Attribution theory and
research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 457-501.
Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Alge, B. J.
(1999). Goal commitment and the goal setting process: Conceptual
clarification and empirical synthesis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
84, 885-895.
Koestner, R., Lekes, N., Powers, T. A., & Chicoine, E. (2002).
Attaining personal goals: Self-concordance plus implementation
intentions equals success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
83, 231-244.
Latham, G. P. (2004a). The importance of understanding and changing
employee outcome expectancies for gaining commitment to an
organizational goal. Personnel Psychology, 54, 707 -716.
Latham, G. P. (2004b). The motivational benefits of goal-setting.
Academy of Management Executive, 18, 126-129.
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (in press). New developments in
and directions for goal setting research. European Work and
Organizational Psychologist.
Latham, G. P., Mitchell, T. R., & Dossett, D. L. (1978). The
importance of participative goal setting and anticipated rewards on goal
difficulty and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63,
163-171.
Latham, G. P., & Saari, L. (1979). The effects of holding goal
difficulty constant on assigned and participatively set goals. Academy
of Management Journal, 22, 163-168.
Latham, G. P., Winters, D. C., & Locke, E. A. (1994). Cognitive
and motivational effects of participation: A mediator study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 15, 49-63.
Latham, G. P., & Yukl, G. (1976). Effects of assigned and
participative goal setting on performance and job satisfaction. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 61,166-171.
Locke, E. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and
incentives. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 3, 157-189.
Locke, E., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect
of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 241-251.
Locke, E., & Latham, G. P. (1990a). A theory of goal setting
and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Locke, E., & Latham, G. P. (1990b). Work motivation and
satisfaction: Light at the end of the tunnel. Psychological Science, 1,
240-246.
Locke, E., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically
useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American
Psychologist, 57, 705-717.
Locke, E., Latham, G. P., & Erez, M. (1988). The determinants
of goal commitment. Academy of Management Review, 13, 23-39.
Locke, E., Shaw, K., Saari, L., & Latham, G. (1981). Goal
setting and task performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90,
125-152.
Luginbuhl, J. (1971). Role of choice and outcome on feelings of
success and estimates of ability. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 22, 121-127.
Luginbuhl, J., Crowe, D., & Kahan, J. (1975). Causal
attributions of success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 31, 86-93.
Manz, C. C. (1986). Self-leadership: Toward an expanded theory of
self-influence processes in organizations. Academy of Management Review,
11, 585-600.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2001). The new
superleadership: Leading others to lead themselves. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler.
Miller, D. (1976). Ego involvement and attributions for success and
failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 901-906.
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2002). Vertical versus
shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change
management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional,
transformational and empowering leader behaviours. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 172-197.
Prussia, G. E., Anderson, J. S., & Manz, C. C. (1998).
Self-leadership and performance outcomes: The mediating influence of
self-efficacy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 523-528.
Regan, D., Straus, E., & Fazio, R. (1974). Liking and the
attribution process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10,
385-397.
Rosenbaum, L., & Rosenbaum, W. (1971). Morale and productivity
consequences of group leadership style, stress and type of task. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 55, 343-348.
Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus
external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monograph, 80, 1-28.
Schuler, R. (1976). Participation with supervisor and subordinate
authoritarianism: A path-goal theory reconciliation. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 21,320-325.
Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2001). The effect of distal
learning, outcome, and proximal goals on a moderately complex task.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 291-302.
Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2005). Learning versus
performance goals: When should each be u