Page 219 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

the high performance cycle 203
As a graduate student, Herzberg was undecided as to whether to pursue a career in
clinical or industrial psychology. Eventually, he decided in favor of studying ways to
increase the mental health of the worker. When, in a graduate seminar, he proposed using
the CIT as a method for measuring the causes of satisfaction and mental health, Flanagan
(W. Ronan, personal communication) responded that this would be inappropriate, be-
cause employees would be likely to attribute positive incidents to what they themselves
did while attributing the cause of negative incidents to factors in the environment outside
their control. Herzberg did not heed this advice. A decade later, scholars (e.g., Dunnette,
Campbell, & Hakel, 1967; King, 1970) showed that Flanagan was indeed correct.
The emergence of the two factors was the result of a methodological artifact including the
confusion of events with agents (Locke, 1976). Herzberg’s findings could be replicated
only if the same methodology, the CIT, was used. All other methods showed that job
satisfaction–dissatisfaction were on the same continuum rather than two independent
continua. Consequently, Herzberg’s two-factor theory fell into disrepute. The negative
findings of Brayfield and Crockett plus the problems inherent in Herzberg’s methodology
left the field in a state of chaos.
Nevertheless, Herzberg’s work focused the attention of scientists and practitioners on
the importance of challenging and meaningful growth-facilitating tasks. The problem
became that of identifying the relationship between enriched jobs and job satisfaction as
well as the relationship of these to job performance.
Enriching jobs, includes increasing performance feedback. This increase in feedback
often leads people to set performance goals. Umstot, Bell, and Mitchell (1976) found that
it was goal setting that directly increased performance, whereas task-enriching variables
directly increased satisfaction.

THE HIGH PERFORMANCE CYCLE

At the end of the twentieth century, Locke and Latham (1990a, b) tried to bring order to
these contradictory findings by formulating the concept of the high-performance cycle
(HPC). It is an inductive theory based primarily on the accumulated findings of empirical
research on goal-setting performance, satisfaction and organizational commitment con-
ducted during the final quarter of that century. The theory, shown in Figure 10.1, states
that specific difficult goals plus high self-efficacy for attaining them are the impetus for
high performance. Goals and self-efficacy affect the direction of action, the effort exerted
as well as persistence to attain the goal. In addition, the goals and self-efficacy motivate
the discovery of strategies for effectively doing so. The effect of goals on performance
is moderated by ability, the complexity of the tasks, situational constraints, the feedback
provided in relation to the goal, and commitment to the goal.
High performance on tasks that are perceived as meaningful and growth facilitating,
plus high external and internal rewards, lead to high job satisfaction. The consequence is
a willingness to stay with the organization and accept future challenges, hence the high
performance cycle.
The theoretical significance of the HPC is that it provides a comprehensive sequence of
causal relationships that is consistent with research findings. The practical significance of
the HPC is that it provides a model or blueprint for creating a high performing workforce
that is also highly satisfied.