Personality, Goal-setting, and Motivation: Locke and Latham perspectives

Personality, Goal-setting, and Motivation: Locke and Latham perspectives

By: Leontes Dorzilme, Doctoral student
 

Introduction

For a long time, the study related to motivation at work was not a priority for researchers. The field was dominated by behaviorists and the problematic of motivation was argued to relay outside of the individual such as reinforcers and punishers. McClelland et al. (1953), a nonbehaviorist, introduced the idea that motivation is related to probable existence of internal motives. But subconscious was maintained as the core motivational reserve instead of consciously made decision. With Ryan (1970), the conscious purposes affecting human behaviors were clearly stated on the level of plans, intentions, and tasks. However, one of the most enlightening findings in the field of motivation is Locke and Latham’s (2002) contribution in linking individual’s motivation to personality traits and decision making. This paper is aimed at presenting the core findings of Locke and Lathman (2002, 2004) on motivation at work in relation to goal-setting, self-efficacy, and personality traits while keeping in perspective Rousseau’s (1985) study on organizational levels and their impact on individual’s motivation and organizational decision making process.

Locke & Latham Approach on Motivation, Personality, and Decision Making

Locke and Latham offered a broader approach by twisting subconscious and conscious motivation in goal setting, self-efficacy and motivation theory. Their contribution seriously impacted previous studies stating that goals may have only an unconscious, anticonscious, or subconscious (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953) impact on behavior. In their study conducted during 25 years with more than 40, 000 participants from 8 countries, Locke and Latham (2002) considered a unique approach by pointing out the role of personality, the goal mechanism, the impact of expectancy and social cognitive theories on motivation. According to their findings, people tend to be satisfied after an attainable goal has been reached. That means motivation serve as crystallizer for personal goals by mediate conscious motivational factors to commit to the goal and to seek self efficacy. In the same vein, Smithson (2012) found that realistic goal setting positively affected student’s weekly performance.

When it comes to personality trait, Locke and Lathman (2002) admit that if trait are understood as sum of past behaviors, the traits would predict, not explain what can be someone’s behaviors. On the other hand, if traits can explicitly or implicitly reflecting some kind of motives, then they can be seen as part of motivational elements. Therefore, if goals mediate personality effects, goal could predict better than personality. Conversely, Weiss (1988) stated that performance goal is definitely a strong variable that makes up personality differences. According to Taylor (2012), achievers are people who set realistic and attainable goals while underachievers have no particular goals or have set goals beyond their reach. The social cognitive theory sustains that self-incentives affect behaviors in relation to goal attainment. Therefore, the anticipated satisfaction for goal attainment or dissatisfaction in case of insufficient performance may constitute incentives for behaviors predicting the likelihood of performance gains or goal attainments (Bandura, 1986, 1989). Not only the social cognitive theory is primarily turned toward self-efficacy, it also mediates the moral judgment.

Rousseau and Locke & Latham: Complimentary Aspects

Rousseau (1985) had introduced the issue of level in the I/O Psychology. He warned searchers about not integrating the level factor in studying organizational phenomena. He emphasized the role of levels into organizational effectiveness and outcomes must be approached on compositional, cross-level, and multi-level ways. Organizational structures either opened or closed structure is determinant in group forming, and personal interaction on job’s site. The structure and levels also impact individual’s orientation and disposition to perform. Consequently, from a multilevel perspective, Kozlowski (2012) noted two fundamental systems processes across levels of the organizational system: top-down contextual effects that shape lower level phenomena and bottom-up emergent processes at the lower level that combine manifest collective phenomena.

In the same vein, Huang, C. et al. (2012) underlined studies sustaining that individual job satisfaction is related to perceptions of aspects of the firm’s organizational climate. Same as Rousseau (1985), Locke and Latham (2004) also pointed out the importance of organizational structure in getting employees motivated. They suggest incorporating motivation theory into organizational theory (Macro). For example, argued Locke and Latham (2004), there is little doubt on the consequences centralized or decentralized organizational structure may exert on motivation at work. The organizational levels constitute then a situational or functional factor based on the precognitive and postcognitive model of information processing.

Rousseau and Locke & Latham Applicability in Building Organizational Climate

Organizational levels are definitely essential in analyzing the organizational culture and climate, both must be taken as perspectives to determine the impact work environments exert on individuals’ behaviors (Schneider (1990). At this point, Locke and Latham has fully demonstrated the relation between organizational level, goal setting on each level and the way individual forming process of individual goals (micro) by consciously integrating the organizational goals toward a common or macro objective (Kozlowski et al., 2012).

Senge (2006) noted that people with higher purposes may not feel at ease in an organization where the shared value doesn’t match their personal needs. In other words the shared vision and organizational structure are playing a key role in motivating individuals and in creating team cohesiveness ( Sorrentino, 2006). Parker, Jimmieson, & Amiot (2009) emphasized that employees’ autonomy in the workplace to improve self-efficacy. That being said, the level of autonomy individuals may enjoy, depends on the organizational structure and the level at which he/she is operating. For example, Langkamer (2008) found that the psychological climate dimension of leadership has proven impact on affective commitment, morale, and intent to leave or stay in the Army. Same as the organizational that may influence individual’s perception of the workplace, Spink (2013) found that the social environment in the workplace, in many aspects, may provide insight into factors related to and ultimately influences effort.

Conclusion

Rousseau (1985) on one hand, and Locke and Latham (2002, 2004) on the other have provided the key factors to work on in order to make on individual motivation the center of goal setting on for effective organizational outcomes. The goal setting process may be also affected by the organizational structure which needs to be taken into account. Thus centralized organizational structure may not provide the necessary room for autonomy, a crucial mediator for self-efficacy. In addition, since Locke and Latham (2004) pointed out the importance of social cognitive factors in motivation, further research can be made on the impact on expectancy in mediating motivation in transitional societies such as Haiti, China or Korea. Affected by the transition from the collectivism as culture toward the individualistic invasion sustained by the globalization and technology, these societies may face also a shift in organizational culture and values. Such a change may have an impact on goal setting and motivation.

References
 

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Bandura, A. (1989). “Self-Regulation of Motivation and Action through Internal Standards and Goal Systems”, In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal Concepts in Personality and Social Psychology,19-85. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

DeWalt, D.A., Davis, T.C., Wallace, A.S., Seligman, H.K., Bryant-Shilliday, B., Arnold, C.L., Freburger, J., & Schillinger, D. (2009). Goal setting in diabetes self-management: Taking the baby steps to success. Patient Education and Counseling, 77, 218-223.

Hattrup, K. & Jackson, S.E. (1996). Learning about individual differences by taking situations seriously. In K.R. Murphy (Ed.).Individual differences and behavior in organizations (507 – 543). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley

Heuze, J.P. & Fontayne, P. (2002). Questionnaire sur l’ambiance du groupe : a french-language instrument for measuring group cohesion. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology , vol. 24 (1), 42-67. Retrieved from https://ehis.ebscohost.com.library.gcu.edu:2048/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=7&sid=e431fa3d-c627-4f02-a1be-19f5c17b035d%40sessionmgr110&hid=104

Huang, C. et al. (2012). A multidimensional analysis of ethical climate, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Nursing Ethics, vol. 19 (4), 513-29. ISSN: 0969-7330 PMID: 22753457. Retrieved from https://ehis.ebscohost.com.library.gcu.edu:2048/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=11&sid=38ed4a58-8ea6-42af-9578-131ad56a090b%40sessionmgr114&hid=5

Jinyan, F. et al. (2008). On the role of goal orientation trait and self-efficacy in the goal-setting: Distinctions that make a difference. Human Performance, vol. 21(4), 354-382. DOI: 10.1080/08959280802347122.

Kozlowski, S. et al. (2012). The dynamics of emergence: Cognition and cohesion in work teams. Managerial & Decision Economics, vol. 33(5/6), 335-354. Retrieved from https://ehis.ebscohost.com.library.gcu.edu:2048/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=ce248d80-0e0a-4949-9ae3-0cb9519f8e05@sessionmgr111&hid=109

Langkamer KL; E. (2008). Phychological climate, organizational commitment and morale: Implication for career Captains’ intent.  Journal article - research , vol. 20(4): 219-36. Retrieved from https://ehis.ebscohost.com.library.gcu.edu:2048/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=7&sid=84eabbb3-2e94-4fe5-9103-07e41cc6c416%40sessionmgr13&hid=104

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717. Retrieved from https://library.gcu.edu:2048/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pdh&AN=2002-15790-003&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2004). What should we do about motivation theory? Six recommendations for the twenty-first century. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 388-403. Retrieved from https://library.gcu.edu:2048/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=13670974&site=ehost-live&scope=site

McClelland, D., Atkinson, J., Clark, J., & Lowell, E. (1953). The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Nelson, D. L. Quick, J.C. (2000). Organizational behavior: Foundations, realities and challenges. OH: South-Western

Parker, S.L., Jimmieson, N.L., & Amiot, C.E. (2009). The stress-buffering effects of control on task satisfaction and perceived goal attainment: An experimental study of the moderating influence of desire for control. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58(4), 622-652. Retrieved from DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00367.x.

Ryan, T. A. (1970). Intentional behavior. New York: Ronald Press.

Schneider, B. (1996). When individual differences aren’t. In K.R. Murphy (Ed.). Individual differences and behavior in organizations (507 – 543). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Smithson, M. (2012). The positive impact of personal goal setting on assessment. Canadian Journal of Action Research, vol. 13(3), 57-73. Retrieved from https://ehis.ebscohost.com.library.gcu.edu:2048/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=9&sid=1e36c6de-0c41-450e-b243-7e99bd0b4ae5%40sessionmgr13&hid=3

Sorrentino, D.M. (2006). The seek mentoring program: An application of the goal-setting theory. Journal of College Student Retention, 8(2), 241-250.

Spink, K. et al. (2013). The perception of team environment: The relationship between the psychological climate and members’ perceived effort in high performance groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, vol. 17(3), 150-161. Retrieved from https://ehis.ebscohost.com.library.gcu.edu:2048/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=84eabbb3-2e94-4fe5-9103-07e41cc6c416@sessionmgr13&hid=7

Taylor, R. (2012). Goal setting. Ron Taylor: Amazon.com: Kindle Store.

Lawrence, R. J. & Michael, D.(1996). Perceptions of organizational climate. In K.R. Murphy (Ed.). Individual differences and behavior in organizations (507 – 543). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley

Weiss, C. H. (1988). ‘Evaluation for decision: Is anybody there? Does anybody care?’, Education Practice, vol. 9 (1), 5-20.