The effects of participation in goal setting and goal rationales on goal commitment: An exploration of justice mediators 指導教授： Chen, Ming-Puu 報告者 ： Chang, Chen-Ming 報告日期： Li, A., & Bulter, A. B. (2004). The effects of participation in goal setting and goal rationales on goal commitment: An exploration of justice mediators. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(1),

Introduction(1/7) Difficult and specific goals lead to higher performance than easy and vague goals has been robustly established in the research literature and is widely applied in organizational settings (Donovan & Radosevich, 1998; Locke & Latham, 2002). One construct that is central to goal setting theory is goal commitment. Goal commitment is characterized by determination to expend effort towards a goal over time (Hollenbeck & Klein, 1987), and without it, individuals are more likely to abandon their goal in the face of difficulties (Locke & Latham, 1990).

Introduction(2/7) Latham compared participatively set goals to goals that were assigned with an accompanying rationale and found a weak effect for participation (e.g., Latham, Steele, & Saari, 1982). Erez and her colleagues compared participatively set goals to goals that were simply assigned without explanations and found a significant effect for participation (Earley & Kanfer, 1985; Erez & Arad 1986). Latham, Erez, and Locke (1988) compared participatively set goals with a rationale, assigned goals (i.e., tell), and assigned goals with a rationale (i.e., tell and sell), and found that the participatively set goals and ‘‘tell and sell’’ goals produced higher commitment than ‘‘tell’’ goals.

Introduction(3/7) Earley (1986) argued that goal rationales increase the experienced meaningfulness of the goal, thus leading to more goal commitment. Similarly, Locke and Latham (1990) stated that giving subordinates a plausible reason for a difficult goal can help increase goal commitment. One goal of the present study was to examine the interactive effects of participation in goal setting and rationales on goal commitment.

Introduction(4/7) Therefore, we predicted the following interaction between participation in goal setting and rationales for the goal on goal commitment:  Hypothesis 1: Participatively set goals will more greatly increase goal commitment over assigned goals when no rationales are provided for the goal than when rationales are provided.

Introduction(5/7) A second goal of the present study is to examine the mechanisms through which participation and rationales influence goal commitment. We believe that the effect of participation on goal commitment may be mediated by perceptions of procedural justice.  Procedural justice refers to perceptions of the fairness of decision-making processes

Introduction(6/7) Indeed, Roberson, Moye, and Locke (1999) found that subjects participating in goal setting reported higher procedural justice perceptions than those who were assigned a goal, and procedural justice mediated the effect of goal participation on task satisfaction. we believe that perceptions of procedural justice may provide a mechanism for participation effects on goal commitment.  Hypothesis 2: Perceptions of procedural justice will mediate the effect of participation in goal setting on goal commitment

Introduction(7/7) We also believe that the effect of goal rationales on goal commitment may be mediated by perceptions of interactional justice.  Interactional justice refers to perceptions of the fairness of interpersonal treatment. Hypothesis 3: Perceptions of interactional justice will mediate the effect of goal rationales on goal commitment.

Method(1/2) Participants  A total of 116 undergraduate students at a Midwestern University participated in this study for course credit. Task  Participants performed a letter search and count task on a computer. Procedure  We employed a 2 (participatively set goals vs. assigned) 2 (rationale for the goal vs. no rationale) factorial design.

Method(2/2) Manipulation Checks. Single item measures were used to assess the success of the goal participation and goal rationale manipulations Goal Commitment. Goal commitment was assessed with a scale adapted from a study by Klein and his colleagues (Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck, Wright, & DeShon, 2001). Interactional Justice. Interactional justice was assessed by modifying a scale developed in two previous studies (Bies & Moag, 1986; Greenberg, 1994). Procedural Justice. Procedural justice was assessed by modifying a scale developed by Beugre and Baron (2001).

Result(1/5) Participants in the participatively set goal condition indicated that they had significantly higher levels of participation in goal setting (M = 5.69, SD = 1.28) than participants in the assigned goal condition (M = 2.88, SD = 1.91), t(114) = 9.43, p <.001. Participants in the rationale condition were significantly more likely to indicate that they received an adequate rationale for the goal (M=5.95, SD =1.10) than participants in the no rationale condition (M =4.12, SD =1.45), t(114) =7.61, p <.001.

Result(2/5)

Result(4/5) We did not find that participants who participated in goal setting were more committed to the goal (M =4.69, SD =0.95) than those who were assigned a goal (M =4.43, SD =1.24). We did find that participants involved in goal setting perceived more procedural justice (M =5.52, SD =1.00) than those who were assigned a goal (M =3.81, SD =1.50). Participation in goal setting was not a significant predictor of goal commitment, our second hypothesis was not supported because there was not a main effect for procedural justice perceptions to mediate.

Result(5/5) We found that participants who received goal rationales reported higher goal commitment (M =4.96, SD =0.98) than participants who did not receive rationales (M =4.22, SD =1.08). In addition, we found that participants who received goal rationales perceived more interactional justice (M =5.58, SD =0.90) than those who did not receive rationales (M =4.43, SD=1.13). Third hypothesis was completely supported.

Discussion(1/2) We found a marginally significant interaction between participation and rationales, such that commitment was generally lower when goals were simply assigned and no rationale was provided. We also found that participation in goal setting did not affect goal commitment, although it did increase perceptions of procedural justice.

Discussion(2/2) A controversy in prior research was whether goals that were participatively set resulted in greater commitment than goals that were assigned. However, because the participation condition in the study also included a rationale, the interactive effects of participation and rationale were unexamined. We found no difference in goal commitment between participatively set goals with a rationale and assigned goals with a rationale, and both of those conditions produced higher goal commitment than assigned goals with no rationale.