IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ausman/v15y1990i1p39-64.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effects of Three Participative Goal Setting Strategies on Task Goal Attributes and Perfor Mance

Author

Listed:
  • D. Neil Ashworth

    (E. Claiborne Robins School of Business, University of Richmond, Virginia, U.S.A.)

Abstract

Historically, goal-setting research has included attempts to gauge the importance of participation on perfor Mance and other task-goal attributes such as satisfaction. But much of the prevailing research has failed to recognise the dynamics of the process itself. In an attempt to determine if variation in the level of participation would have any impact, a laboratory experiment using clerical-type tasks was conducted with 72 students separated into participative and assigned goal-setting conditions. Those in the participative condition were assigned to one of three strategies which varied the actual participation allowed. It was hypothesized that both condition and strategies would affect such factors as perfor Mance and satisfaction. Results indicated that the participative condition did not have a significant impact but that there were some differences created by using different participative strategies. Discussion centered on the implications for organisations considering a participative management philosophy and suggestions for further research.

Suggested Citation

  • D. Neil Ashworth, 1990. "The Effects of Three Participative Goal Setting Strategies on Task Goal Attributes and Perfor Mance," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 15(1), pages 39-64, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ausman:v:15:y:1990:i:1:p:39-64
    DOI: 10.1177/031289629001500102
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/031289629001500102
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/031289629001500102?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Campbell, Donald J. & Gingrich, Karl F., 1986. "The interactive effects of task complexity and participation on task performance: A field experiment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 162-180, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gediminas Adomavicius & Shawn P. Curley & Alok Gupta & Pallab Sanyal, 2020. "How Decision Complexity Affects Outcomes in Combinatorial Auctions," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(11), pages 2579-2600, November.
    2. Park, Jinkyun, 2014. "Investigating the TACOM measure as a general tool for quantifying the complexity of procedure guided tasks," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 66-75.
    3. Nace Magner & Robert Welker & Terry Campbell, 1996. "Testing a Model of Cognitive Budgetary Participation Processes in a Latent Variable Structural Equations Framework," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1), pages 41-50.
    4. Robert Shipley, 2002. "Visioning in Planning: Is the Practice Based on Sound Theory?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 34(1), pages 7-22, January.
    5. Ismail Cenk Demirkol & Mahesh K. Nalla, 2017. "Sustaining police officers’ motivation in aviation security," Journal of Transportation Security, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 171-187, December.
    6. Ann-Frances Cameron & Jane Webster, 2013. "Multicommunicating: Juggling Multiple Conversations in the Workplace," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 352-371, June.
    7. Cheok MUI YEE & Edward WONG SEK KHIN & Kamisah ISMAIL, 2016. "An analysis of budgetary goals impacting organizational performance," The Audit Financiar journal, Chamber of Financial Auditors of Romania, vol. 14(137), pages 551-551, April.
    8. Kanfer, Ruth & Chen, Gilad, 2016. "Motivation in organizational behavior: History, advances and prospects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 6-19.
    9. Hall, David C. & Johnson-Hall, Tracy D., 2021. "Recall effectiveness, strategy, and task complexity in the U.S. meat and poultry industry," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    10. Patrick Ifergan & Pierre-Laurent Bescos, 2010. "Les Facteurs Objectifs De La Complexité De La Tâche En Audit Légal," Post-Print hal-00477398, HAL.
    11. Russo, Giovanni, 2016. "Job Design and Skill Developments in the Workplace," IZA Discussion Papers 10207, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Razali Mat Zin & Amine Nehari Talet, 2016. "The Effects Of Participation In Decision Making On Organizational Commitment: Some Empirical Evidences," Proceedings of Business and Management Conferences 3405991, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    13. Mala, Rajni & Chand, Parmod, 2014. "Impacts of Additional Guidance Provided on International Financial Reporting Standards on the Judgments of Accountants," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 263-288.
    14. Sarah A. Hinchliffe, 2019. "A Focus on ‘Control’: Reconciling Contemporary Transaction Cost Economics with Behavioural Contingency Accounting Perspectives," Accounting and Finance Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 8(2), pages 189-189, May.
    15. O'Donnell, Ed. & Koch, Bruce & Boone, Jeff, 2005. "The influence of domain knowledge and task complexity on tax professionals' compliance recommendations," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 145-165, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ausman:v:15:y:1990:i:1:p:39-64. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.agsm.edu.au .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.