Page 234 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

218 the high performance cycle: standing the test of time
Seijts and Latham (2001) examined the effect of setting proximal goals in conjunction
with either a distal learning or a distal outcome goal on a task that required learning
in order to perform it correctly. As was found by Kanfer and Ackerman, the people
in the “do your best” condition performed significantly better than those with a distal
outcome goal. But, as was the case in the Winters and Latham study, performance was
even higher when people were assigned a specific difficult learning goal. This is because
a distal learning goal led to higher goal commitment than did the assignment of a distal
outcome goal. Moreover, self-efficacy increased across trials in the distal learning goal
condition whereas in the distal goal condition it decreased. People with high self-efficacy
were more likely than those with low self-efficacy to discover task-relevant strategies. A
mediator analysis showed that strategies had both a direct effect on self-efficacy as well
as an indirect effect on performance.
Setting proximal goals led to the formulation of the largest number of strategies. That
proximal goals did not have a direct effect on performance in this study may have been
the result of the task, namely one of high certainty rather than uncertainty.
In summary, knowledge of how to perform a task includes strategy, tactics and ability
(Locke, 2000). Important discoveries in this area within the past decade include the
documentation of when to set a specific high learning goal rather than a performance
outcome goal. When people lack the knowledge or skill to perform the task, a specific
difficult learning goal should be set rather than an outcome goal; a specific difficult
outcome goal should be set when people have the requisite knowledge or skill. Proximal
goals are often more effective than distal goals in generating high performance on tasks
that are complex for people.

SITUATIONAL CONSTRAINTS AND UNCERTAINTY

Related to the moderating influence of ability, as well as tasks that are complex, are
situational constraints. In the study referred to above, Lane and Karageorghis (1997)
foundthatlearninggoalsweremoreeffectivethanoutcomegoalsinovercomingobstacles
caused by coworkers.
Uncertainty can attenuate the relationship between demands and performance when
what the person knows to be true at one point in time is no longer true at a later point in
time due to the situation being in a state of flux. Using an assessment center simulation
where high school students were paid on a piece-rate basis to make toys, Latham and
Seijts (1999) found that urging people to do their best led to higher performance than
setting a difficult, distal outcome goal. However, setting proximal in addition to distal
goals led to the greatest monetary earnings in an ever-changing marketplace. This is
because proximal goals, through self-efficacy and performance feedback, focused the
person’s attention on task appropriate strategies in coping effectively with uncertainty.
A social dilemma can be a situational constraint for the normally positive effects
of goal setting. In addition, the size of the group is also a situational constraint in a
social dilemma. In a money-making task, Seijts and Latham (2000a) obtained no main
effect for goal setting. However, they found that high personal goals that are compatible
with the group’s goal enhances group performance; in contrast, a personal goal which
contradicts the group goals has a detrimental effect. Individuals in 7-person groups were
less cooperative, had lower collective efficacy, a lower commitment to the goal, and
lower group performance than those in 3-person groups.