Page 236 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

220 the high performance cycle: standing the test of time
This is especially true when there are strong leader–member relations (Klein & Kim,
1998).
A meta-analysis showed that goal commitment moderates the relationship between
goal difficulty and performance (Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck, & Alge, 1999). The cor-
relation between goal difficulty and performance is higher among individuals with high
rather than low goal commitment. However, this analysis, as well as a study by Seijts and
Latham (2001), revealed that goal commitment can have a main effect on performance
when all participants are trying to attain reasonably difficult goals.
Allscheid and Cellar (1996) found that commitment had a direct effect on performance.
Similarly, in a field experiment involving supervisors, Morin and Latham (2000) found
that goal commitment correlated positively with both self-efficacy and performance.
Another meta-analysis revealed that goal commitment accounted for only 3% of the
variance in the goal–performance relationship (Donovan & Radosevich, 1998). This is
undoubtedly due to restriction of range, because as noted, most people readily accept
assigned goals. A second reason for this finding is very likely the different operational-
izations of goal commitment (DeShon & Landis, 1997; Seijts & Latham, 2000b). For
example, Tubbs and his colleagues (Tubbs, 1993, 1994; Tubbs & Dahl, 1992; Tubbs &
Ekeberg, 1991) operationalized goal commitment as the absolute discrepancy between
assigned and self-set goals. They found that such a measure consistently moderated the
relationship between assigned goals and performance. To the extent, however, that ability
influences the choice of one’s goals and one’s subsequent performance, the observed re-
lationship between the discrepancy measure and performance is partly spurious. When
ability is partialled out, Wright and his colleagues (1994), in a re-analysis of Tubb’s
data, showed that the correlation between the discrepancy measure and performance
was reduced significantly.
Klein et al. (1999), using meta-analysis and confirmatory factor analysis, found that
goal commitment is unidimensional, and that 5 of the original 9 self-report measures on
Hollenbeck et al.’s (1989) self-report attitudinal scale appear to be a robust psychomet-
rically sound measure of goal commitment.
Seijts, Meertens, and Kok (1997) found that within very difficult goal conditions,
participants who perceived the task as meaningful had higher performance than did
those who viewed it as unimportant to them. Presumably meaningfulness was a proxy
variable for goal commitment.
Earley, Shalley, and Northcraft (1992) found that goal commitment was a curvilinear
function of goal difficulty. However, anchoring can dilute the decrease in commitment
thatcanoccurwithveryhighgoals.Hinsz,Kalnback,andLorentz(1997)toldparticipants
to “set a challenging and specific goal for the number of uses you will generate this next
period—for example 320” (p. 291). Consistent with findings in the decision-making
literature, the anchor affected goal level, which in turn affected self-efficacy regarding
goal attainment as well as subsequent performance. Commitment is a function of the
expectancy that the goal can be attained and the value the individual attaches to its
attainment (Locke & Latham, 1990a; Tubbs & Dahl, 1991; Wofford et al., 1992).
In summary, advances have been made regarding an understanding of goal commit-
ment, specifically in documenting its interaction with goal difficulty, identifying the best
items for measuring it, and showing the effect of anchoring on it (Seijts & Latham,
2000b). Goal commitment can affect performance directly when goal difficulty is held
constant and is at a high level.