The interactive effects of task complexity and participation on task performance: A field experiment

Abstract Goal-setting investigators have suggested that participation in the goal-setting process may be important for both motivational and cognitive reasons; however, goal-setting research has focused almost exclusively on the motivational aspect of participation, while generally ignoring the cognitive aspect. In an attempt to demonstrate the cognitive implications of participation, a field experiment was conducted with 40 computer programmers writing either a simple or a complex program. Half the participants were actively involved in discussing the project and in jointly determining the completion target, while the other half were simply assigned completion times of equivalent difficulty. It was hypothesized that, for complex programs, individuals participating in the discussion process would outperform individuals having assigned targets of similar difficulty. In contrast, for simple programs, it was expected that participation would have no effect on task performance. The data were analyzed using a 2 × 2 ANOVA procedure, and results strongly supported the hypothesized interaction. Discussion centered on the implications of the findings for future research in this area.

[1]  D. Campbell.  The effects of goal-contingent payment on the performance of a complex task , 1984 .

[2]  Anas N. Al-Rabadi,et al.  A comparison of modified reconstructability analysis and Ashenhurst‐Curtis decomposition of Boolean functions , 2004 .

[3]  Gary P. Latham,et al.  THE EFFECTS OF PARTICIPATION AND GOAL DIFFICULTY ON PERFORMANCE , 1982 .

[4]  Terence R. Mitchell,et al.  Importance of participative goal setting and anticipated rewards on goal difficulty and job performance. , 1978 .

[5]  Gary P. Latham,et al.  Effects of Assigned and Participative Goal Setting on Performance and Job Satisfaction. , 1976 .

[6]  Terence R. Mitchell,et al.  Effects of assigned versus participatively set goals, knowledge of results, and individual differences on employee behavior when goal difficulty is held constant. , 1979 .

[7]  Gary P. Latham,et al.  THE EFFECTS OF SELF‐SET, PARTICIPATIVELY SET AND ASSIGNED GOALS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES , 1982 .

[8]  Gary P. Latham,et al.  Assigned versus participative goal setting with educated and uneducated woods workers. , 1975 .

[9]  E. A. Locke,et al.  Participation in decision making: When should it be used? , 1986 .

[10]  J. Bragg,et al.  Participative Decision Making: An Experimental Study in a Hospital , 1973 .

[11]  D. Campbell.  Determinants of choice of goal difficulty level: A review of situational and personality influences , 1982 .

[12]  G. Latham,et al.  The Motivational Effects of Participation Versus Goal Setting on Performance , 1983 .

[13]  Gary P. Latham,et al.  Importance of supportive relationships in goal setting. , 1979 .

[14]  Charles A. O'Reilly,et al.  Informational influence as a determinant of perceived task characteristics and job satisfaction. , 1979 .

[15]  Gary P. Latham,et al.  The effects of holding goal difficulty constant on assigned and participatively set goals. , 1979 .

[16]  Kenneth J. Christensen,et al.  A Perspective on Software Science , 1981, IBM Syst. J..

[17]  E. A. Locke,et al.  Goal setting and task performance: 1969–1980. , 1981 .

[18]  Nancy R. Hall,et al.  Combined Network Complexity Measures , 1984, IBM J. Res. Dev..

[19]  G. Latham,et al.  A Review of Research on the Application of Goal Setting in Organizations , 1975 .