Page 235 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

moderators 219
In summary, the Kanfer and Ackerman (1989) study may have done the field a dis-
service through the claim that goals have a detrimental effect in the learning stage of
an activity. In point of fact, goals have a key role in the acquisition of knowledge and
skill. Bandura and Schunk (1981) showed eight years prior to the Kanfer and Ackerman
study that proximal goals on a task that requires learning increase perceived self-efficacy,
intrinsic interest, as well as performance accomplishments whereas terminal or outcome
performance goals have no effect.
Thus it appears that Kanfer and Ackerman assigned the wrong goal, that is, terminal
product rather than proximal outcome or learning goals, and then issued an erroneous
conclusion that goals are detrimental to learning. Research conducted in the past decade
support Bandura’s (1986) assertion that goals provide motivation and guidance for at-
tentional and cognitive activities required for learning. The issue of importance for high
performance is the type of goal that is set.

FEEDBACK

Cellar, Degrendel, Sidle, and Lavine (1996) found that feedback in relation to a quantity
goal led to higher performance than goal-setting alone. A meta-analysis (Neubert, 1998)
confirmed this finding. Specific behavioral feedback in relation to goal setting has also
been found to increase transfer of training effectiveness (Shoenfelt, 1996).
Siero, Bakker, Dekker, and van den Berg (1996) obtained a large change in energy
savings for industrial plants when feedback was given relative to the performance of
other groups rather than in relation to a goal that was perceived by the employees as
arbitrary. This may have led to competition with other groups that in turn increased
goal commitment. On a creativity task, Carson and Carson (1993b) found that goal
commitment increased as individuals tracked their progress toward the goal.
Vance and Colella (1990) found that negative feedback in relation to the goal not
only decreased goal commitment, but led to a lowering of personal goals on subsequent
trials. However, as noted earlier, Tabernero and Wood (1999) found that identifying sub-
standard performance relative to goal attainment was highly effective in increasing the
performance of those who have an incremental or dynamic belief about their ability; con-
sistent with the finding of Vance and Colella, this increase did not occur for individuals
who believed that their ability was a fixed entity. Undoubtedly these various beliefs have
potent effects on self-efficacy.
The assertion by some that action stops when feedback indicates that the goal has been
attained was shown to be incorrect by Phillips, Hollenbeck, and Ilgen (1996). Contrary
to control theory, people actively create goal-performance discrepancies by setting a
higher goal upon goal attainment. Seeking and striving are inherent in goal setting.
In summary, feedback allows people to track progress in relation to the goal and also
to provide information bearing on one’s degree of enactive mastery, which in turn affects
self-efficacy.

GOAL COMMITMENT

When commitment is lacking, goals have little or no effect on behavior (Wofford,
Goodwin, & Premack, 1992). Commitment is often easy to obtain in both labora-
tory and field settings because the goal is perceived as legitimate by the participants.