^Academy of Managemeni Review, 1983, Vol. 8. No. 3, 454-463.

The Role of Goal Acceptancein Goal Setting and Task Performance^

MIRIAM EREZTechnion-Israel Institute of Technology

FREDERICK H. KANFERUniversity of Illinois, Champaign

Goal setting has been widely used to enhance work motivation. This paperdiscusses the importance of goal acceptance in moderating goal setting ef-fects and shows how workers' acceptance of goals can be influenced atvarious stages of the progression from goal setting to goal attainment. Aheuristic organization of goal acceptance strategies is proposed as a basisfor extending the theoretical framework underlying goal setting research.

Goal setting is the only current approach to workmotivation that claims a beneficial effect on perfor-mance in 90 percent of the reported studies (Locke,Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981). The theory is basedon the assumption that goals represent an end statetowards which a person strives and that they serveas immediate regulators of action. The most signifi-cant finding has been that specific and hard goalsresult in better task performance, given that the goalsare accepted. In fact, in studies in which variance ingoal acceptance was noted, subjects who did not ac-cept the assigned goal were omitted from the experi-ment (Locke, Memo, & Katcher, 1978). Such pro-cedures clearly equate the establishment of a goal anda person's intention to reach it. However, goals com-monly used in research are assigned externally by asupervisor and are defined in terms of performancestandards, quotas, work norms, or deadlines. Thesegoals are primarily organizational goals and cannotbe presumed to be equal to the worker's self-set goals.

Varying discrepancies between externally set goalsand intentions to attain them imply that goal accep-tance be considered as a moderator variable of cen-tral importance. Cases of low acceptance of organiza-tional goais are common in life situations. In fact,the whole area of leadership and management isoriented towards motivating subordinates to accept

'The authors wish to express their appreciation to Charles L.Hulin and Ruth Kanfer for their critical reading of an earlier drafton this paper.

organizational goals. The process of evaluating goalswith regard to their individual acceptability becomesmost important when variance in acceptance isrecognized. Despite an admonition that "more at-tention should be paid to what occurs between theoffering or presentation of the incentive and actualperformance; mainly the processes of evaluation andgoal setting" (Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968,p. 483), the mechanisms by which goals affect per-formance have not yet been fully explored. It is thepurpose of the present paper to extend the theoreticalframework underlying goal setting research by focus-ing more closely on the relationship between pre-sented goals and intentions (or individual goal set-ting) in Locke's formulation.

The Process of Goal Evaluation

Einhorn and Hogarth (1981) suggest that evalua-tion can be equated with choice, as indicated by thefollowing proposition. "Alternative x will be chosenover>' if u (x)>w (j)." The first part of this proposi-tion indicates an evaluation. If it is assumed that in-dividuals aim at maximizing subjective expectedutilities (Vroom, 1964), goal evaluation can be ap-proached by using a utility model of choice. The ex-pectancy model postulates that a choice to act in acertain way is based on the person's expectancy thatexecuting the chosen action will lead to the attain-ment of valued outcomes. It is formulated in terms

454

of V (valence), tne perceivea positive or negativevalue ascribed to the possible outcome of an actionon the job; /(instrumentality), the perceived action-outcome relationship; and E (expectancy), the per-ceived effort-action relationship. The utility of ac-cepting a goal can be understood in the same way.The expected value of accepting a goal is a functionof the expectancy that attainment of that goal willlead to outcomes that are valuable to the decisionmaker.

Defining goals in terms of their outcomes has threeimportant implications. First, the evaluation processunderlying the goal setting effect is extended to in-clude the following components: setting goals,monitoring behavior, and evaluating goal directedbehavior in reference to accomplishing goals and at-taining their valued outcomes.

Second, the definition of goals as standards of pro-ficiency (Locke et al., 1981) is no longer satisfactorybecause it limits the motivational concept to thedimension of magnitude or intensity. An additionaldimension—direction toward or away from a goal—can be included when goals are evaluated for thepositive or negative outcomes. Maintaining bothdirection and intensity in pursuit of a goal reflectspersistence. Hence the definition of goals in termsof their outcomes facilitates the expansion of themotivational concept of a goal from a unidimensionalto a three dimensional concept. Goal definition andgoal acceptance are not static; they can change dur-ing work and affect motivation and performance asthey do.

Third, goal outcomes can be evaluated different-ly by the person who assigns the goal and the personwho works toward attaining it. For example, an or-ganizational goal of a 10 percent increase in em-ployees' performance would result in a positive out-come for the organization of a 10 percent increasein profit, and a negative outcome for the employeesof a 10 percent increase in effort. In most goal set-ting studies no distinaion has been made between thevalue of the outcome for the person who assigns thegoal and the value for the person who works towardits attainment. Differences in goal evaluation betweenthe two parties may not be relevant if both fully ac-cept the goal. However, differences can play a criticalrole when goal acceptance is low or absent. Thesupervisor's task then lies in enhancing the valenceof the goal for the worker so that goal achievementprovides satisfactory outcomes for both parties. For

example, employees can be offered such contingentoutcomes as 10 percent salary increases to makeorganizational goals more attractive to them. Thus,what is a controlling variable from the organizationalpoint of view (the increase in salary) becomes the ef-fect for the employees. Similarly, the independentvariable of a production increase from the employee'spoint of view becomes the outcome for the organiza-tion. This reciprocal relationship suggests a need fora two-way motivational model. Current theories ofwork motivation have not yet provided such a recip-rocal approach, although recently a theory was for-mulated by Bougon (1980) for the symbiotic relation-ship between two or more parties.

Locus of Goal Setting

The discussion has suggested that goal acceptancedepends on the perceived utilities of the goal.Another source of infiuence on goal acceptance is theperceived locus of goal setting. A goal is more likelyto be accepted when it is perceived to be under a per-son's control than when it is perceived as externallyimposed. Control satisfies a person's need to feel asense of mastery and personal competence (de-Charms, 1968). Any threat to a person's sense of con-trol results in reactance or noncompliance. Personalcontrol is experienced when an individual can chooseamong options to attain utility (Brigham, 1979) orwhen he or she can actively intervene to maximizecontingencies (Staw, 1980). In both cases perceivedpersonal control gains reward properties by its poten-tial for maximizing utilities and avoiding the distressof deprivation of desired outcomes (Renshon, 1979)and aversive outcomes (Thompson, 1981). The ex-ercise of control by choosing alternatives or infiuen-cing contingencies can become a goal in itself.

Several learning studies have demonstrated thatperformance is improved more when students areallowed to choose the material than in no-choicesituations (Liem, 1975; Perlmuter, Monty, & Kim-ble, 1971; Savage, Perlmuter, & Monty, 1979). Otherstudies have shown that self-generated responses toitems on memory tasks (Slamencka & Graf, 1978),the generation of information by subjects (Johnson& Raye, 1981), or the attributions of scores to sub-jects' own emotional reaction (Kanfer, Karoly, &Newman, 1974) result in significant advantages inrecall and performance. Moreover, performance islower for subjects who are deprived of a choice that

455

they had previously believed to be accessible than forsubjects offered no choice at all (Kanfer & Grimm,1978; Perlmuter, Monty, & Cross, 1974). Subjectswork harder when they have control over perfor-mance-outcome contingencies and types of rewards(Brigham, 1979). Subjects who could choose puzzlesto be solved and the time allotted for work on themworked significantly longer after the formal end ofthe experiment, compared to subjects who had nochoice (Zuckerman, Porac, Lathin, Smith, & Deci,1978). Choice and self-control were found to be ef-fective in reducing negative symptoms such as stressand anxiety (Mandler & Watson, 1966) and in in-creasing tolerance of pain (Avia & Kanfer, 1980;Glass & Singer, 1972; Kanfer & Seidner, 1973;Lieberkind & Paul, 1977; Miller, 1980; Thompson,1981; Turk, 1978).

To summarize, goal acceptance involves a choicebased on the evaluation of the relationship between(a) effort and goal behavior, and (b) goal behaviorand outcomes and the extent of control a person hasover the two contingencies. Numerous studies haveindicated that people prefer choice and control overno choice or no control. Therefore, the effects ofpresented goals should be enhanced by the degreeeto which a worker perceives him/herself as par-ticipating in choosing the goal and maintaining con-trol over the goal-directed behavior.

This analysis suggests a conceptual model thatorganizes the variables relevant for goal acceptancealong two dimensions. The first is the order of eventsbeginning with the goal setting process and progress-ing through the monitoring of goal directed behaviorsto the evaluation of goal attainment and goal out-

comes. This sequence parallels a aynamic problemsolving approach and, as described elsewhere (Kanfer& Busemeyer, 1982), is best viewed as a recursiverather than a linear progression to the goal. Difficultyof the goal, specific information about the desiredgoal state, and other parameters affect initial goalsetting. However, an intention to work for a goaldoes not remain constant throughout the task. As thework progresses, new information and the mannerin which it is obtained can modify the acceptance ofthe previously established goal. Certain factors con-stitute the sequence-dimension of the model, asshown in Table 1. They relate to different stages ofa task and affect the stability of goal acceptance.They are: (1) goal setting; (2) feedback, the result ofmonitoring performance progress; (3) performanceevaluation; and (4) criteria for goal attainment andits consequences.

The second dimension represents the specifiedsource of control, ranging from an internal to an ex-ternal locus of control. It indicates that the sourceof information at various stages can infiuence anemployee's continued acceptance of the goal, therebyaffecting performance. In goal setting the degree ofworker participation infiuences goal acceptance. Dur-ing task performance, responsibility for monitoringprogress may not be specified at all and feedback maybe absent. It may be given by a supervisor. It canbe obtained by jointly established means for monitor-ing progress, or it can be based on the employee'sprivate judgment. Similarly, evaluation of perfor-mance can be made by a supervisor or jointly by asupervisor and an employee. It can be generated bythe employee, or no provision for evaluation can be

Table 1A Matrix of Sources of Control at Various Points

in the Sequence from Goal Setting to the Consequences of Goal AttainmentSequence of Events

Source of Control Goal Setting Monitoring EvaluationAttainment

and Outcome

No Control 0

External 1

Joint participation 2

Self-generated 3

456

made. Finally, both goal attainment and goal out-comes (e.g., rewards) can be specified by manage-ment, jointly negotiated, specified by an employee,or omitted altogether.

Different techniques for infiuencing goal-orientedperformance can be classified by locating them onthe two-dimensional matrix (Table 1). The criteriafor classification are: At what stage(s) of the sequenceis the technique applied and what actual control doesthe worker have at this stage? For example, a pro-cedure in which management imposes goals, moni-tors and evaluates progress, and defines rewardswould be codified as Al - Bl - Cl - Dl or 1-1-1-1.A participatory decision making (PDM) procedure,with joint setting of goals, monitoring by manage-ment, joint evaluation, and joint decision about goalstates and rewards would be codified by A2 - Bl -C2 - D2, or 2-1-2-2. A pattern in which goals andrewards are set by an employer but all activitiesleading to that goal are independently chosen by theworker would be characterized as 1-3-3-1.

Strategies to Enhance Goal Acceptance

Goal setting research has related the informationalaspect of goals and peformance feedback (knowledgeof results) to improve performance levels. Yet, themotivational aspects of goal outcomes and locus ofcontrol have been overlooked. The traditionalstrategy of goal setting (Locke, 1968) involves theassignment of goals by a supervisor who also moni-tors and evaluates employee's behavior. The goalsare commonly assigned but presumed to be acceptedby employees, and no further incentives are used.Thus, the traditional strategy can be classified as a1-1-1-0 pattern.

High levels of acceptance have been reported inmost experiments. Consequently, cases of goal rejec-tion and their causes and consequences have not beeninvestigated. Perhaps for this reason little attentionhas been paid to the analysis of different goal set-ting strategies, their immediate effect on goal accep-tance, and their distal effects on performance.

Goal setting strategies vary on a continuum fromexternal to internal control £is noted above. In a tight-ly controlled system, compliance with external (as-signed) goals can be forced by numerous means, suchas economic or social pressure or even physical coer-cion. In an open system, consistent with a societyoriented toward individualism, goal attainment is

facilitated by individually set goals, self-regulation,and high individual benefits of goal-related out-comes. As the previous section suggests, maximiz-ing goal acceptance in industrial organizations usuallyinvolves a combination of strategies that vary alonga continuum of internal-external locus of control.

Participation in Goal Setting

Participation in goal setting and in decision mak-ing has been used as one strategy to overcome resis-tance to change. The process of influencing peopleto accept change involves at least three factors(Lewin, 1951): (a) a cognitive factor-knowledgeabout and understanding of the the new requirementsand the rationale behind them; (b) an affectivefactor-reduction of anxiety associated with theunknown or the ambiguous, as well as the develop-ment of a significant sense of control over the situa-tion; and (c) a behavioral factor-commitment to theactions implied by acceptance of changes.

Participation in decision making and in goal set-ting has been suggested as an effective strategy tocope with low acceptance. According to Lewin(1951), PDM increases knowledge and understandingby providing information on a person-to-personlevel, by communicating inputs from all groupmembers, and by giving participants an opportunityto appraise the information and to fit it with theirown view of the situation. PDM reduces anxiety,gives the individual more control of the situation, andcreates commitment to the group decision. The earlierstudies conducted by Lewin (1943) demonstrated thesuperiority of participative over nonparticipativetechniques in changing consumers' behavior andeating habits. The method was successfully im-plemented in an industrial setting by Coch andFrench (1948), demonstrating increased productiv-ity in the participative conditions. The strategy canbe classified as a 2-2-2-2 type because employees andsupervisors jointly set up goals, monitored andevaluated behavior, and decided on the piecerate pertime unit.

Neider (1980) claims that participation has apositive effect on performance because it serves toclarify the effort-performance linkage. A field experi-ment conducted in four retail stores indicated thatthe combination of a participative approach and anindividual incentive scheme resulted in the highestperformance level compared to three other groups:participation only, incentives only, and no-treatment.

457

Neider concluded that performance is significantlyimproved when the linkage between effort and per-formance is clear and when valued outcomes are as-sociated with the expenditure of effort.

Vroom and Yetton (1973) developed a model ofleadership suggesting practical criteria for using aparticipative versus a nonparticipative managerialstrategy. Again, the criteria were based on the levelof information and on goal acceptance. A partici-pative strategy was predicted to be more effectivewhen the leader lacks the necessary information tosolve the problem by himself and when acceptanceof the decision by subordinates is not certain, yet iscrucial for performance. Vroom and Yetton's modelimplements the general rules of influence for a par-ticipative approach in the leader-subordinates do-main.

The relative effects of participation versus mere in-formation were examined by Wilier and Miller(1976). They contrasted the effects of level of goalattainment and level of satisfaction on length of stayin a psychiatric hospital. Findings indicated that in-volvement in goal setting led to a significantly shorterstay, higher attainment of the goal, and higher sat-isfaction than mere information without active in-volvement. The relative effect of the information ver-sus the motivation component is a research issue thathas not yet been investigated. Yet it does not detractfrom the significance of participation.

Unfortunately, most recent studies on participativeversus nonparticipative goal setting effects on per-formance neglected to examine the two crucialattributes—information and acceptance—that arenecessary for the evaluation of participation effec-tiveness. In a recent review of the literature on goalsetting, Locke et al. (1981) were able to cite only onestudy (Hannan, 1975) that tested for the participativeeffect on acceptance and found a positive relation-ship between participation and goal acceptance. Anexamination of recent studies on participation in goalsetting indicates that they did not include the ex-perimental conditions needed to test the specificmechanisms that account for participation effec-tiveness. Groups did not vary in available informa-tion because goals were specifically defined and sub-jects usually were given practice trials. In addition,acceptance, as reported by participants, was high andthere was no variance (Latham, Mitchell, & Dossett,1978; Latham & Saari, 1979a, 1979b). In fact, Lockeet al. (1981) indicate that attempts to measure job

acceptance iu a miuiiici mai uiiiciciiuaics aiiiuiig ex-perimental treatments had failed. Finally, data on thesubjects' anxiety levels were not collected in theabove-mentioned studies. However, there is noreason to assume a major role for anxiety reductionas the effective component in PDM; the tasks usedin the experiments were nonthreatening. For exam-ple, Latham and Yukl (1976) used typing; Lathamet al. (1978) asked for a number of uses for an ob-ject; Seeborg (1978) used a box construction task.

Based on the present state of research, it is sug-gested that the lack of significant differences betweenparticipation and nonparticipation procedures in-dicated in the previous studies is limited to conditionsof high acceptance and high information. In fact, onewould not expect differences between the two meth-ods when goal acceptance is already high, becauseit is just such acceptance that participation aims toproduce. A recent study by Erez, Earley, and Huhn(1982) suggests a two-step model of participation ef-fectiveness. Participation was found to affect accep-tance, which in turn affects performance. When ac-ceptance was held constant, participation had nosignificant effect on performance. Further researchin organizational psychology should explore the par-ticipation effect under various parametric conditionsthat potentially arouse or sustain resistance tochange.

Coordinating External Controlwith Internal Motivation

Due to situational constraints, participation in thegoal setting and evaluation process cannot always bepracticed in all four stages. For example, the mostdesirable rewards generally remain under control ofmanagement; thus the source of control remains ex-ternal. In fact, cases of exclusively external or ex-clusively internal control are rare in Western societies,because democratic values do not tolerate forcedcompliance. Yet a certain amount of coordinationand control is necessary to maintain a well-function-ing organization. Consequently, a proper mix ofsocial and personal control should yield the greatestlong term effectiveness and stability (Kanfer, 1979).

One strategy to achieve goal acceptance is to coor-dinate external control with personal motivation. Theconceptual relationship between intrinsic motivationand locus of control has been developed in cognitivetheories by deCharms (1968), Festinger (1957), Deci(1971, 1972) and Deci, Neziek, and Sheinman (1981).

458

Tht tuorumation oi external control with internalmotivation can be examined with reference to re-wards. DeCharms (1968) first proposed that when ex-ternal rewards are given for an intrinsically motivatedactivity, a person attributes control to an externalagent rather than to an internal source, and his/herbehavior becomes motivated by the external rewardrather than by intrinsic motivation. For example, theuse of money as an external reward shifts the locusof causality from internal to external and does notcontribute to perceived competence. On the otherhand, some rewards, such as positive performanceevaluation or praise, may increase perceived com-petence and intrinsic motivation even though theirsource is external. One possible explanation is thatapproval as a reward may not be distinctly differentfrom the feeling of satisfaction that the person getsfrom performing the activity; thus intrinsic motiva-tion is strengthened.

Deci et al. (1981) suggested that reinforcers can bemodified to express either external or internal con-trol by emphasizing either the controlling or the in-formational aspect of a reinforcer. The salience ofthe former aspect strengthens perceived external con-trol, whereas the salience of the latter aspectstrengthens perceived internal control because it pro-vides individuals with information about their owncompetence. It was empirically demonstrated (Deciet al., 1981) that children were more intrinsicallymotivated and developed higher self-esteem whentheir teachers used rewards as information ratherthan as controls. Hence, one strategy for coor-dinating external control with internal motivation isby using rewards as a source of information ratherthan as a source of control.

A second strategy to coordinate an external goalwith internal commitment to the goal is the use ofcontracts. The source of infiuence that leads a per-son to make an intention statement, commitment, orcontract may be heavily external. Once made,however, the contract may serve as a self-generatedgoal. Consequently, attainment of goals and behaviorspecified in the contract may be perceived as anachievement of a self-established criterion and servesas a reinforcer. Two mechanisms are suggested to ex-plain the successful effect of contracts on goal at-tainment: first, the amount of information availableto the parties and, second, the commitment involvedin stating explicit intentions. Kanfer, Cox, Greiner,and Karoly (1974) tested the effect of contracts on

tolerance of an aversive stimulus and reported asignificant effect of an explicit contract on perfor-mance. Tolerance was significantly higher for the ex-plicit than for the nonexplicit contract group. Reportsof the successful use of contracts also are availablein cases of drug addiction (Boudin, 1972; Wisocki,1972), weight control (Tobias, 1972), excessive smok-ing (Spring, Sipich, Trimble, & Goeckner, 1978),marital discord (Jacobson, 1977), and other problembehaviors.

In clinical practice and in social psychologyresearch, numerous other techniques have beenreported to infiuence subjects toward increased com-mitment to a course of action leading to a specifiedgoal. These include: use of paradoxical intervention(Lazarus, 1976), goal and value clarification (Koberg& Bagnall, 1976), foot-in-the-door techniques (Cial-dini, Cacioppo, Bassette, & Miller, 1978; Freedman& Fraser, 1966), and modeling and role playing(Goldfried & Davison, 1976). In all of them a com-mon element is the increased participation of the sub-ject in some part of the total sequence from goal set-ting to goal and outcome attainment.

Self-Regulation

Organizational procedures have some similarity totherapeutic processes in clinical psychology in thatboth aim to bring about a change in the persontoward conformity with more widely held social andorganizational norms and goals. Acceptance of ther-apeutic goals is a necessary precondition for mosttreatments in clinical psychology. Yet, therapists havelong realized that attempts to change client behaviorssolely by external control are commonly rejected byall but the most helpless clients. As a result of necessi-ty, cognitive behavior therapists have worked todevelop strategies to enlist client cooperation and in-crease motivation to change. Self-management stra-tegies have been found to be most powerful forreducing resistance to change, setting therapeuticgoals that are accepted by the client and the therapist,and for maintaining a high level of activity towardachieving the goal. Self-regulation techniques alsocan be useful in an organizational setting whenemployees have to cope with adaptation to changeand commitment to organizational goals.

Similar to the sequence in the establishment andmaintenance of goal-oriented performance in in-dustrial organizations, the clinical self-managementapproach focuses on both the cognitive-informa-

459

tional and the behavioral components as they interactin the progress from goal setting and commitmentto task execution. The therapist helps the client toexamine the current problem situation, to developrealistic goals for change that are consistent with theclient's value system, and to develop and maintainhigh motivation for goal attainment and for reassess-ment of goals throughout the process (Kanfer &Grimm, 1980). The model suggests the need to at-tend to such diverse aspects as the attractiveness ofthe goal, the perception of control in goal setting andattainment, the capability of carrying out thenecessary behaviors, and the use of feedback aboutprogress in order to maintain efficient performance.

In Kanfer's (1970, 1971, 1980) feedback-loopmodel of self-regulation it is postulated that a per-son establishes criteria for a particular behavior thatthen serve both motivational and corrective func-tions. The model describes three stages of the self-regulation process. The first stage is triggered by anyevent that interrupts or terminates an ongoing behav-ioral sequence. In this self-monitoring stage the per-son attends to his/her own behavior and its context.In the second stage, self-evaluation, a comparison ismade between information obtained in the first stageand the standard (goal) developed for the behavior.This comparison yields information about the degreeof discrepancy between the actual performance andthe standard. In the third stage, feedback and rein-forcement are generated, depending on the degree towhich the observed behavior has fallen short or ex-ceeded the standards. This evaluation serves as a basefor further action such as self-correction, termina-tion of a behavioral sequence, or reevaluation of thestandard. All three stages of the self-regulation modeluse information and controlling techniques that areprovided by the person. The model therefore can beclassified as a 3-3-3-3 type, although at each stageexternal infiuences can and do modify the self-regulatory functions. The model has been the basisfor the development of numerous self-control tech-niques in clinical practice. It has been used to con-ceptualize the effects of the continued interaction be-tween environmental and personal controlling vari-ables on behavioral outcomes. Empirical support ofthe model and of the effectiveness of self-regulationin maintaining and altering behavior has been sum-marized elsewhere (Kanfer, 1977, 1980).

Implications

Cases of implementation of self-management havebeen demonstrated in clinical psychology but not inorganizational psychology. However, there is a grow-ing recognition of the relevance of social learningtheories and the concept of self-regulation toorganizational psychology. Some researchers evenargue that self-management can be an importantsubstitute for leadership (Kerr & Jermier, 1978; Manz& Sims, 1980).

The present authors recognize that no single cur-rent theory of motivation can explain all behavior.Recommended, therefore, is not the replacement ofexisting theories but the incorporation of the conceptsof self-regulation into current models of work moti-vation. It is well known that self-management can-not be implemented fully because of organizationalconstraints. Yet, it is suggested that a comprehen-sive model of self-management can serve as a theo-retical framework for the systematic evaluation ofpresent techniques for enhancement of work motiva-tion.

The self-management model is anchored in twocontingencies, goal setting-goal accomplishment andgoal accomplishment-goal outcomes, and the per-son's control over these two contingencies. The pro-cess involves four steps: setting goals, monitoring,evaluating, and strengthening (reinforcing) behavior.

The traditional model postulated by Locke in 1968did not empirically examine these two contingenciesand made almost no use of self-regulatory processes.It centered on the first stage of setting goals assum-ing high goal acceptance. Some progress has beenshown in the 1981 model (Locke et al., 1981). First,the recognition of feedback as a necessary compo-nent of the goal setting model (Erez, 1977) accountsfor the goal setting-goal accomplishment contingen-cy and for the goal accomplishment-goal outcomescontingency, given that goal accomplishment satisfiesneeds for self-growth. Second, the recognition offinancial incentives as the most powerful deter-minants of employees' performance (Locke, Feren,McCaleb, Shaw, & Denny, 1980) accounts for thegoal accomplishment-goal outcomes contingency.Thus, the two contingencies and self-regulation havepartially and implicitly, but not explicitly, been in-corporated into the goal setting technique.

The traditional model of goal setting has been suc-cessfully implemented when high goal acceptance was

460

T p of thetraditional model and is particularly appropriatewhen goal acceptance cannot be taken for granteda priori.

The traditional model is concerned mainly withchanges in magnitude of goal difficulty and not somuch with changes in direction or persistence. Goalacceptance becomes more crucial when all three goaldimensions—magnitude, direction, and persistence-are examined. In the latter case, levels of acceptancealso can be more clearly predicted when the sourceof control is considered as a major variable than byuse of the goal-setting model alone.

To enhance goal acceptance and thereby improvetask performance, it therefore is recommended thatthe level of self-regulation be systematically and ex-plicitly increased at each successive stage of the goalevaluation process. Such an approach should expandthe utility of the goal setting model beyond situationsin which continued high goal acceptance can beassumed.

The matrix suggested for organizing strategies forimproving work motivation points to the importanceof considering the component processes, played outover time, as a worker moves from start to comple-tion of a goal-oriented activity. Throughout the tem-poral sequence, feedback and reevaluation can en-hance or impede motivation to perform. Research onthe relative importance of the contributions of suchcomponents as the role of external-internal controlover feedback or evaluation of progress should fur-ther enrich the goal setting model. It would refine

its predictions as it accounts for the variations in per-formance that may be associated with changes in goalacceptance over the course of the goal-orientedactivity.

The concept of self-management is partially im-plemented by other techniques of work motivationsuch as job enrichment, quality control, timemanagement, and the use of extrinsic and intrinsicrewards. But its use in these techniques is implicit andnot theory-based. Application of the comprehensivemodel of self-management should be useful in ex-amining whether and to what degree these varioustechniques overlap or complement each other in theirimplementation of an approach that combines exter-nal control and self-control. For example, it can beshown that time management centers around the self-monitoring of behavior, whereas quality circles centeraround self-evaluation and intrinsic rewards centeraround self-reinforcement. A systematic evaluationof existing techniques in the light of a common the-oretical framework could contribute substantiallytoward an integration and modification of presenttechniques of work motivation.

Finally, successful utilization of self-regulation onthe job requires some preparatory steps on the partof management. Following Brief and Aldag (1981),an organization can improve performance if it createsthe opportunity for individual control, communicatesto employees that self-management is recommend-ed, and trains employees in methods of setting goals,monitoring, evaluating, and reinforcing their ownbehavior.

References

Avia, M. D., & Kanfer, F. H. Coping with aversive stimulation:The effects of training in a self-management context. CognitiveTherapy and Research, 1980, 4, 73-81.

Boudin, H. M. Contingency contracting as a therapeutic tool inthe deceleration of amphetamine use. Behavior Therapy, 1972,3, 604-608.

Bougon, M. G. Schemata, leadership, and organizational behavior.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, 1980.

Brief, A. P., & Aldag, R. J. The "seir' in work organizations:A conceptual review. Academy of Management Review, 1981,6, 75-88.

Brigham, T. A. Some effects of choice on academic performance.In L. C. Perlmuter & R. A. Monty (Eds.), Choice and perceivedcontrol. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1979,131-142.

Cialdini, R. B., Cacioppo, R., Bassett, R. B., & Miller, J. A. Low-ball procedure for producing compliance: Commitment thencost. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978, 36,463-476.

Coch, L. & French, J. R. P. Overcoming resistance to change.Human Relations, 1948. 1, 512-532.

deCharms, R. Personal causation: The internal affective deter-minants of behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1968.

Deci. E. L. Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsicmotivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971,18, 105-115.

Deci, E. L. Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement, and in-equity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 22,113-120.

461

Deci, E. L., Neziek, & Sheinman, L. Characteristics of therewarder and intrinsic motivation of the rewardee. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 1981,40, 1-10.

Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. Behavioral decision theory:Processes of judgment and choice. Annual Review ofPsychology, 1981, 32, 53-88.

Erez, M. Feedback, a necessary condition for the goal setting-performance relation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62,624-627.

Erez, M.. Earley, P. C , & Hulin, C. The impact of participationupon goal acceptance and performance: A two-step model.Manuscript submitted for publication, 1982.

Festinger, L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, 111.:Row, Peterson, 1957.

Freedman. J. L., & Fraser, S. Compliance without pressure: Thefoot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 1966, 4, 195-202.

Glass. D., & Singer, J. Urban stress. New York: Academic Press,1972.

Goldfried, M. R.. & Davison, G. C. Clinical behavior therapy.New York: Holt. Rinehart & Winston, 1976.

Hannan. R. L. The effects of participation in goal-setting on ac-ceptance and performance: A laboratory experiment. Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland, 1975.

Jacobson. N. S. Problem-solving and contingency contracting inthe treatment of marital discord. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, \911, 45, 92-100.

Johnson. M. K., & Raye, C. L. Reality monitoring. PsychologicalReview, 1981, 88, 67-85.

Kanfer, F. H. Self-regulation: Research, issues and speculations.In C. Neuringer and J. L. Michael (Eds.), Behavior modifica-tion in clinical psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 1970, 178-220.

Kanfer. F. H. The maintenance of behavior by self-generatedstimuli and reinforcement. In A. Jacobs & L. B. Sachs (Eds.),The psychology of private events. New York: Academic Press,1971. 39-57.

Kanfer. F. H. Selbstregulierung und Selbstkontrolle (Self-regulation and self-control). In H. Zeier (Ed.), Die Psychotogiedes 20 Jahrhunderts, Zurich, Switzerland: Kindler Verlag, 1977,793-827.

Kanfer, F. H. Personal control, social control and altruism, orcan society survive the age of individualism? AmericanPsychologist, 1979, 34, 231-239.

Kanfer, F. H. Self-management methods. In F. H. Kanfer & A.P. Goldstein (Eds.), Helping people change. 2nd ed. New York:Pergamon Press, 1980, 334-389.

Kanfer, F. H., & Busemeyer, J. R. The use of problem-solvingand decision making in behavior therapy. Clinical PsychologyReview, 1982, 2, 239-266.

Kanfer, F. H., Cox, L. E., Greiner, J. M., & Karoly, P. Con-tracts, demand characteristics, and self-control. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 1974, 30, 605-619.

Kanfer, F. H., & Grimm, L. G. Freedom of choice and behavioralchange. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1978,46, 873-878.

Kanfer, F. H., & Grimm, L. G. Managing clinical change: A pro-cess model of therapy. Behavior Modification, 1980,4,419-444.

Kanfer, F. H., & Seidner, M. Self-control factors enhancingtolerance of noxious stimulation. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology. 1973, 25, 381-389.

Kanfer, F. H., & Karoly, P., & Newman, A. Source of feedback,observational learning, and attitude change. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 30-38.

Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. Substitutes for leadership: Theirmeaiiingand measurement. Organizational Behavior of Human Perfor-mance, 1978, 22, 375-403.

Koberg, D., & Bagnall, J. The Polytechnic School of Values(Values Tech). Los Altos, Cal.: William Kaufmann, 1976.

Latham, G. P., & Saari, L. M. Importance of supportive rela-tionships in goal-setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1979a,64, 151-156.

Latham, G. P., & Saari, L. M. The effect of holding goal dif-ficulty constant on assigned and participatively set goals.Academy of Management Journal, 1979b, 22, 163-168.

Latham, G. P., & Yukl, G. A. Effects of assigned and participativegoal-setting on performance and job satisfaction. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 1976,61, 166-171.

Latham, G. P., Mitchell, J. R., & Dossett, D. L. Importance ofparticipative goal-setting and anticipated rewards on goal dif-ficulty and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,1978, 63, 163-171.

Lazarus, A. A. Multi-modal behavior therapy. New York: SpringerPublishing Company, 1976.

Lewin, K. Forces behind food habits and methods of change.Bulletin of the National Resource Council, 1943, 108, 35-65.

Lewin, K. Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row,1951.

Lieberkind, S. C , & Paul, L. A. Psychological and physiologicalmechanisms of pain. Annual Review of Psychology, 1977, 28,41-60.

Liem, G. R. Performance and satisfaction as affected by personalcontrol over salient decisions. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 1975, 31, 232-240.

Locke, E. A. Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1968, 3,157-189.

Locke, E. A., Cartledge, N., & Koeppel, J. Motivational effectsof knowledge of results: A goal-setting phenomenon?Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 70, 474-485.

Locke, E. A., Mento, A. J., & Katcher, B. L. The interaction ofability and motivation in performance: An exploration of themeaning of moderators. Personnel Psychology, 1978, 31,269-280.

462

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ , G. P. Goalsetting and task performance. Psychological Bulletin, 1981, 90,125-152.

Locke, E. A., Feren, D. B., McCaleb, V. M., Shaw, K. N., &Denny, A. T. The relative effectiveness of four methods ofmotivating employee performance. In K. D. Duncan, M. M.Gruneberg, & D. Wallis (Eds.), Changes in working life. NewYork: Wiley, 1980, 363-387.

Mandler, G., & Watson, D. L. Anxiety and the interruption ofbehavior. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and behavior. NewYork: Academic Press, 1966, 263-288.

Manz, C. C , & Sims, H. P., Jr. Self-management as a substitutefor leadership: A social learning theory perspective. Academyof Management Review, 1980, 5, 361-367.

Miller, S. M. A minimax theory of controllability and humanstress: If I can stop the roller coaster I don't want to get off.In M. E. P. Seligman& J. Garber (Eds.), Human helplessness:Theory and application. New York: Academic Press, 1980,71-96.

Neider, L. An experimental field investigation utilizing an expec-tancy theory view of participation. Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance, 1980, 26, 425-442.

Perlmuter, L. C , Monty, R. A., & Cross, P. M. Choice as adisrupter of performance in paired-associate learning. Journalof Experimental Psychology, 1974, 102, 170-172.

Perlmuter, L. C , Monty, R. A., & Kimble, G. A. Effect of choiceon paired-associate learning. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology, 1971, 91, 47-53.

Renshon, S. A. The need for personal control in political life:Origins, dynamics, and implications. In L. C. Perlmuter & R.A. Monty (Eds.), Choice and perceived control. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1979, 41-64.

Savage, R. E., Perlmuter, L. C , & Monty, R. A. Effert of reduc-tion in the amount of choice and perception of control on learn-ing. In L. C. Perlmuter & R. A. Monty (Eds.), Choice andperceived control. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, 1979, 91-106.

Seeborg, I. S. The influence of employee participation in jobredesign. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1978, 14,201-210.

Slamencka, N. J., & Graf, P. The generation effect: Delineationof a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: HumanLearning and Memory, 1978, 4, 592-604.

Spring, F. L., Sipich, J. F., Trimble, R. V., & Goeckner, D. J.Effects of contingency and noncontingency contracts in the con-text of self-control-oriented smoking modification program.Behavior Therapy. 1978, 9, 962-968.

Staw, B. M. Rationality and justification in organizational life.In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organiza-tional behavior (Vol. 2). Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, Inc.,1980, 45-80.

Thompson, S. C. Will it hurt less if I can control it? A completeanswer to a simple question. Psychological Bulletin, 1981, 90,89-101.

Tobias, L. L. The relative effectiveness of behavioristicbibliotherapy, contingency contracting, and suggestions of self-control in weight reduction. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.University of Illinois, Champaign, 1972.

Turk, D. C. Cognitive behavioral technique in the managementof pain. In J. P. Foreyt & D. P. Rathjen (Eds.), Cognitivebehavior therapy. New York: Plenum Press, 1978, 199-232.

Vroom, V. H. Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley &Sons, 1964.

Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. Leadership and decision mak-ing. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973.

Wilier, B., & Miller, M. H. Client involvement in goal-setting andits relationship to therapeutic outcome. Journal of ClinicalPsychology, 1976, 32, 687-690.

Wisocki, P. A. The successful treatment of a heroin addict bycovert conditioning techniques. Journal of Behavior Therapyand Experimental Psychiatry, 1972, 4, 55-61.

Zuckerman, M. Porac, J., Lathin, D., Smith, R., & Deci, E. I.On the importance of self-determination for intrinsicallymotivated behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,1978, 4, 443-446.

Miriam Erez is Associate Professor on the Faculty of In-dustrial Engineering and Management, Technion-Israel In-stitute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.

Frederick H. Kanfer is Professor of Psychology in theDepartment of Psychology, University of Illinois,Champaign.

463