Psicologia del Lavoro e dell'Organizzazione

CSWT Papers
Goals: The Driving Force Within Organizations
Betty Cooper

Abstract

Organizational goals should not be taken for granted or treated lightly. They provide the purpose and direction for actions that companies take. A careful study of the nature of goals and what affects them will reveal how they can be used more effectively. The concept of shared goals is very relevant as companies begin to restructure into teams where individuals must come together to accomplish complex tasks. Shared goals may have further reaching implications if they are viewed as having the potential to affect the whole system. With this kind of importance, attention must be given to the way goals are first accepted by individuals, then shared as a group. The processes used to reach a consensus are also germane to the team. This paper will deal with these issues and the implication they have for companies.

Goals: The Driving Force Within Organizations

Whether at the individual, team, or organizational level, it is commonly acknowledged that goals are needed to accomplish a variety of purposes. It is important to determine what characteristics contribute to effective goals. Also of concern to teams and organizations is the process used to bring about shared goals. This type of commitment requires that the goals must first be accepted by the individuals. A clear understanding of this acceptance process clarifies how teams develop goals to which everyone feels bound. Today executives and managers are earnestly exploring tools, strategies, and processes that may facilitate the development of shared goals.

Goal Hierarchy
In present day organizations goals are given a variety of labels depending on the desired level of specificity or the company's overall understanding of goals. Regardless of the designation used, they are germane for productivity at every level of the organization. Goals reside within a flexible hierarchy or structure. At the top of that structure sits the shared vision of the organization. This vision is the organization's picture of what their ideal would be like, but is expressed as if it were a present reality. Johnson and Johnson (1994) believe that a corporate vision has the ability to inspire and evoke an emotional commitment from the members that is closely akin to passion. If this vision is to be shared by everyone, mechanisms must be in place so that each person can express what is truly important without fear of recrimination. This involves open, honest conversations and dialogue.

As a company establishes a unified vision that has the potential to elicit great things from the employees, the behaviors necessary to carry out this vision must be expressed. These behaviors are referred to by Senge (1994) as values, because this implies how the company will conduct its business; how the company will treat its customers, vendors, and employees. These values become guidelines that direct thinking and actions toward other people, and provide concrete evidence that the vision is more than just lip service to a nice ideal. The vision provides the rationale for why companies act as they do, and values breathe life into it. The values make the vision more than just words, as the company tries to live and act in accordance with the stated vision.

After a company has articulated its vision and established the values which demonstrate the vision, it will develop a meaningful purpose. This is the organization's reason for being. Sometimes it is referred to as the mission. From the organizational standpoint this purpose must be a collective one representing all of the employees. Also at the team level, the purpose is a common one that has meaning to each member. It may originate with the team or be initiated by some requirement placed on the team by management. Regardless, the purpose will need to be reviewed often for clarification as changes occur. This purpose provides a measure against which to resolve conflict that might be a threat to the team's interests (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993).

Finally, within this structure is the formation of goals. These may be thought of as performance goals. This is where the broad purposes are broken down into specific, measurable objectives. Goals of this nature facilitate communication within teams and help to maintain the focus of the members. Clarifying the purpose and establishing priorities are other advantages of goal-setting. The prioritization of goals may be based on the importance to organizational mission and business strategies, or it may reflect time and resource constraints.

Since goals are observable and measurable each team member can clearly see when the team is making strides toward fulfilling their larger purpose (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). Measurable refers to determining who sets the goals; what they are; when the goals must be completed; specifically how goals will be accomplished; and where the work will take place.

In a team's planning process, goals provide a valuable guide for the integration of individual efforts. Research has clearly pointed out the fact that goals are highly motivational, encouraging persistence, as well as strategy development (Locke & Latham, 1990). Goals also facilitate evaluation of team progress and provide a basis for rethinking group efforts, as members measure their progress against the previously established goals. (Richards,1978).

Just as goals are steps toward fulfilling the team's purpose or mission, they are also an extension of the organization's overall vision. The four levels within this goal hierarchy influence and overlap each other. Therefore, they must not be considered separately, but from a systems thinking perspective. Vision and values are usually reflective of the organization's collective thinking, while purpose may provide direction either at the company or team level. Many organizations never visualize or formally express their ideal and start only with a shared purpose or mission statement. The specific nature of performance goals makes it necessary that they are identified and implemented by a smaller slice of the organization, either teams or departments. Team goal-setting results in higher priority goals receiving the most attention, people gaining a clearer understanding of each other's roles and contributions, and the establishment and achievement of more creative and meaningful goals (Coblentz, Geber, & Pribble, 1987).

Impact of Group Goals on Performance
As organizations are striving to improve performance, remain competitive, and survive in a global economy, they are looking toward team-based management to deliver them into the next century. For this reason it is important to investigate the impact of group goals on performance. According to recent research, groups that set goals perform one standard deviation higher than groups that do not (O'Leary-Kelly, Martocchio, & Frink, 1994), but overall there is a paucity of information relating goal-setting to groups or teams.

Many variables have been examined in relation to group goals. Specificity or clarity of goals may be one of those variables which is especially crucial to groups, as multiple goals may be present. Each employee may have a goal for the group as a whole. Likewise he or she may have an individual or personal goal. Zander suggested two other types of goals that exist within groups. These included the group's goal for itself and the group's goal for each individual (as cited in O'Leary-Kelly et al., 1994). The possibility of these goals conflicting necessitates that goals be as clear as possible, both in their intent and implementation.

Research on the relationship between group goal difficulty and group performance reveals that as group goals get more difficult, the effort exerted by members increases with a resulting increase in performance. Goal difficulty also affects the quality of group planning. If the goal is difficult, higher quality planning for coordination has been found to occur within groups (Weingart, 1992).

There are other variables within the group framework itself that can diminish the effect of goal difficulty on group performance. Cohesion may unduly influence the amount of coordinated activity that goes on within the group. If this is the case even an easy goal may result in high performance (as cited in O'Leary-Kelly, Martochio, & Frink, 1994). Price determined the opposite effect can take place if social loafing is evidenced. This phenomenon results when a member of the group feels his or her contribution is unidentifiable, and consequently they expend very little effort. In this case even with difficult goals there may be low performance (as cited in O'Leary-Kelly et al., 1994).

This primary principle of goal-setting, that more difficult goals produce greater performance, has been refined and extended in recent research. Taylor (1992) has found that a key consideration is the complexity of the task. When tasks are complex, easier goals will result in greater performance. A difficult task may reduce the acceptance of the goal and, likewise, weaken the performance. Managers in the workforce should take care in setting difficult goals to individuals or teams when the tasks are considered to be complex and not underestimate the importance of commitment. It was also concluded that setting easier goals for complex tasks resulted in earlier goal acceptance and commitment of resources. An implication for training is the fact that individuals made commitments earlier the more familiar they were with the tasks. In conclusion, group goals should challenge the best in each team member, but keep in mind the competencies that exist within the group and the complexity of the task.

Organizations are currently trying to deal effectively with the concept of empowerment. This implies a sense of ownership or the existence of a participative relationship within the company. Researchers have studied the effect of participation in the goal- performance relationship and have found conflicting results, but the general consensus is that there is no real motivational benefit derived whether goals are set participantly or assigned. It has been suggested that participation will clarify expectations which, in turn, might impact performance (O'Leary-Kelly et al., 1994). Although there is a dearth of research to support participatory goal-setting for groups, the trend toward team-based management will necessitate training and including employees in this process in the future. The implication is that groups will formulate goals that are of importance to the organization and to their team, which may result in increased commitment and higher performance.

Teams by their very nature are small groups that work together to accomplish tasks which could not be accomplished as well individually. These interdependent tasks require employees to work together to develop cooperative strategies that will enhance their effectiveness or performance. The question has been posed whether or not goal setting can facilitate the development of cooperative strategies that will in turn increase performance, when tasks are performed interdependently rather than independently. Weldon and Weingart (as cited in Mitchell, & Silver, 1992) have studied the relationship of group goals to group performance and argue that group goals do increase group performance on interdependent tasks. This comes about from a motivation to work harder, develop more efficient strategies, and promote cooperation. Others proclaim that the very nature of interdependent tasks promote cooperative strategies, not necessarily the goals (Mitchell & Silver, 1990). Workers in the future will be dealing with more interdependent problems as employees apply systems thinking to all aspects of their jobs. Clear goals which take this into account will positively affect coordination efforts.

It can be seen from this brief overview that goal-setting is affected by numerous variables. Team members and organizations need to recognize those things that are going to influence the group goal-performance relationship. Though research is not unanimous in its conclusions about what makes for effective goals, it does open up areas for consideration.

Goal Acceptance
It is abundantly clear that shared goals formulated by a team imply an acceptance by every member. Without such commitment there is really no sharing and little cooperation. Every person must first accept the goals of the group on an individual basis. No one can commit for another person, and there is still individual accountability within all teams.

According to Earley and Shalley's (1991) work, when an individual is presented a goal he or she may initially opt to accept, reject, or evaluate it further. When a goal is accepted, it becomes a personal goal that the individual is willing to work toward. If the goal is automatically rejected several reactions can be exhibited by the worker. Persuasion may be used to demonstrate the unreasonableness of the goal, or an attempt may be made to garner peer support for a particular argument. Negotiations to modify the goal or establish a new one may take place. Regardless of the response, much energy is wasted which could have been used more profitably for the organization. Finally, a goal may require more processing if there is uncertainty, ambiguousness, or novelty. The resulting evaluation focuses on self-efficacy, outcome value, obligation to others, and fairness. Individuals, as well as, teams will evaluate their ability to meet the goal and place some determination on the value of the goal in reaching a personal objective. Organizational norms or a sense of duty to others may be extremely persuasive in acceptance of the goal. If the goals are determined in what is perceived to be a fair manner, they are more likely to be accepted. Individuals who self-set goals will not be as accepting of goals which are assigned.

Teams attempting to develop shared goals should consider establishing challenging goals which would require processing time so that individuals would be forced to go through some of the evaluation steps. Understanding what motivates an acceptance or rejection may be helpful in considering each member's decision. Oftentimes false assumptions can be made about observed behavior. When we add our own interpretation to the behavior this leads to what Chris Argyris calls "the Ladder of Inference" (as cited in Senge et al., 1994). This results in taking action based on misleading conclusions.

From Acceptance to Sharing
Just as individual acceptance or commitment to goals is paramount, if shared goals are to become a reality, there must be a "cooperative interdependence that is structured among group members" (Johnson & Johnson, 1994, p.64). Building interpersonal relationships which foster open communication will increase the likelihood of member involvement and commitment to goals. Teams can no longer merely set objectives, plan, and organize procedures to execute these objectives. They must simultaneously focus on structuring a climate where a cooperative spirit will be nurtured without sacrificing production.

Teams usually consist of people from very diverse backgrounds. If they are brought together for the first time to establish common goals, it may be a very difficult undertaking. Initially employees are not always accepting of change or differences. To build a climate of cooperative interdependence that is conducive to developing shared goals, a team leader or coach must be someone who is an excellent facilitator with the ability to help team members work through conflict and reach consensus (Temme, 1995). He or she will not be effective in shaping shared goals without the interpersonal skills needed to bring people together. Harris Corporation in Melbourne, Florida provides their team leaders with extensive training in group dynamics, focusing on interactive management and team interaction skills (Wellins, Byham, & Dixon, 1994). Effective communication both within the group and between groups is germane.

Equally important for developing shared goals is the cultivation of an atmosphere of mutual trust. This implies an acceptance and respect for each team member's abilities and contributions to the group. It requires an openness and willingness to take risks, from each team member. With newly formed groups the team leader will have the responsibility for cultivating a work environment that promotes trust. It is critical that the leader be perceived as trustworthy by the other team members. In others words, is the leader perceived as someone who will have the be put the team's welfare before his or her own? This can be expressed by clearly communicating a sincere desire to work together toward the accomplishment of mutual goals (Johnson & Johnson, 1994).

Psychological Associates have developed a team behavioral model called "Dimensional Model of Teamwork Patterns" which describes some of the characteristics of teams that stress strong teamwork relationships. Each team member is involved in accomplishing things through a collaborative effort. There is a consensus about who they are, what they are about, and where the team is going. All team members help to clarify the relationships within the group and how the team interrelates with the rest of its environment. They have a clear understanding of performance expectations and work together to achieve them. A productive and cooperative climate abounds as open, businesslike communication is practiced (Montebello & Buzzotta, 1993). A high concern for the needs of each team member is evident.

Goal-Setting Process
If an environment conducive to cooperative interdependence has been established, the team may be ready to develop shared goals. In reality the building of a cooperative structure and the development of shared goals takes place simultaneously rather than in a linear fashion. Oftentimes, a goal may be assigned to a team from management. These are usually broad performance requirements of the organization. It will then be the team's responsibility to decide how this goal can be broken down into subgoals against which progress can be measured and the time frame for completion. The measurement may reflect production rates, waste management, use of resources, or group process concerns. Human Resource measures such as attendance, tardiness, or grievances may also be pertinent. The goals to address are agreed upon by a consensus of the group. Afterwards, prioritizing the goals by some group process such as Nominal Group Process will enable the team to address the most important ones first. Teams often have the freedom to set goals that concern quality or safety standards. They may need to address matters that concern process improvements which are suggested by either management or employees. Newly formed teams deal a great deal with group processes such as participation in meetings. At Harris Corporation two-day training sessions help teams work with their internal customers to identify goals (Wellins, Byhan, & Dixon, 1994). This promotes systems thinking and a consideration for how one team's goals will impact the entire system.

A review of goals may take place monthly, quarterly, or as the situation requires. In many companies a formal semi-annual review takes place with input from all stakeholders. The review assumes continual improvement will take place with training needs determined, new metrics initiated, or new goals set for existing determinants. It is essential that team members understand and use various methods for identifying continuous improvement, such as process diagramming, Pareto analysis, cause-and-effect diagramming, and ranking of solutions based on criteria (Giordan & Ahern, 1994). Many organizations use team activity databases to quickly determine what goals are currently being pursued by different teams so that unnecessary overlap does not occur. However shared goals are reached by the team, it will be a process that may require continued refinement.

Strategies for Developing Shared Goals
It has already been discussed that an open, trusting, environment must be the foundation upon which shared goals can be built. Different perspectives and ways of thinking must be respected and encouraged. This kind of atmosphere does not just happen automatically. There are deliberate strategies that can take place which will promote this type of climate. Teams strive to make decisions based on a consensus of the members. In order to arrive at a consensus, or agreement by all participants, skillful discussion must take place.

Discussion is a conversational form that promotes fragmentation. However, skillful discussion differs from unproductive discussion because the participants are not merely engaged in 'advocacy wars' of one-upmanship. They develop a repertoire of techniques (encompassing collaborative reflection and inquiry skills) for seeing how the components of their situation fit together, and they develop a more penetrating understanding of the forces at play among the team members themselves" (Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, & Smith, 1994, 353-354).

It can be seen from this definition that skillful discussion is vastly different from traditional conversation. This technique forces people to expose their assumptions, examine their thinking processes, and truly reflect on what others are saying. Skilled discussion deals with the how, as well as, the what of the discussion.

To be effective, team members must commit to using five conventions during their meetings. First, each member should have a clear understanding of what they want to see happen as a result of this meeting. It is necessary to convey this intent to others. There should also be an openness toward changing these aspirations. Skillful discussions are not an open forum, but a time where a specific agenda is agreed upon. Another important consideration is the need to strike a balance between voicing one's own opinion and seeking input from others. Revealing unseen assumptions and a purposeful examination of thinking processes will facilitate this balance. Make sure there is unanimous agreement about the meaning of words, and once again, not the tacit assumption that everyone understands. When any member feels uncertainty or confusion, those concerns should be voiced. Finally, each member should stop and reflect on what has been determined and what is still at a stalemate. This includes reflecting on the information, methods to pursue, goals, and values. If each of these five conventions are constantly before each member, a skillful discussion can take place where shared goals are the result. There are other strategies that may be employed to arrive at shared goals, but if skillful discussion is practiced by all members it will move the team significantly toward their objective (Senge, 1994).

When goals are developed and shared by the team, the implication is that a personal commitment will result in enhanced performance for the organization and greater satisfaction for the employee. Since this appears to be a win-win situation it is well worth the effort for organizations to investigate the meaning of shared goals, the circumstances which promote them, and how the system as a whole in impacted.

References

Coblentz, C., Geber, B., & Pribble, R. (1987, march). Team Ggal setting. Training, 24, 12+.

Earley, C. P., & Shalley, C. E. (1991). New perspectives on goals and performance. In G. R. Ferris, & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (pp. 121-157). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Giordan, J. C., & Ahern, A. M. (1994, May/June). Self-managed teams: Quality improvement in action. Research-Technology Management, 37, 33-37.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (1994). Joining together: Group therapy and group skills. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. New York: HarperCollins.

Locke, E. A., & Lathan, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Mitchell, T. R., & Silver, W. S. (1990) Individual and group goals when workers are interdependent: Effects on task strategies and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 25(2), 185-193.

Montebello, A. R., & Buzzotta, V. R. (1993). Work teams that work. Training and Development, 47(3),59-64.

O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Martocchio, J. J., & Frink, D. D. (1994). A review of the influence of group goals on group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1285-1301.

Richards, M. D. (1978). Organizational goal structures. New York: West.

Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., & Smith, B. (1994). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.

Taylor, L. A., III, Cosier, R. A., Ganster, D. C. (1992). The positive effects of easy goals on decision quality and risk propensity in a MCPLP task. Decision sciences, 23, 880-898.

Temme, J. (1995, July). Team formation: Don"t just hope for success plan for it step by step. Plant Engineering, 126-127.

Weingart, L. R. (1992). Impact of group goals, task component complexity, effort, and planning on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 27(5), 682-693.

Wellins, R. S., Byham, W. C., & Dixon, G. R. (1994). Inside teams: How 20 world-class organizations are winning through teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.