The Reciprocal Effects of Science on Practice: Insights from the Practice and Science of Goal Setting

Abstract The hypothesis of this paper is that the science and practice of psychology are interdependent. Science drives practice which drives science. The science and practice of 25 years of programmatic research on goal setting theory in industrial-organizational (1/0) psychology is used in support of this hypothesis. Scientists, practitioners, and scientist-practitioners alike are encouraged to work in unison in order to advance psychology for all. The Smothers brothers, two comedians, have made millions of dollars from one sentence: "Mom always liked you best." People laugh in empathy recalling how as the older child, only the baby sat on mom's knee, or as the younger child recalling that only the older child was granted special privileges. The Smothers brothers' description of their relationship is not unlike the description one can make of the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) in that many practitioners feel strongly that CPA exists primarily for scientists; many scientists know that CPA exists primarily for practitioners. The hypothesis of this paper is that the science and practice of psychology are interdependent rather than a dichotomy. Scientific theories in psychology provide frameworks for practice. They facilitate the development of effective methodologies as well as provide a basis for understanding the success or failure of a predictor or an intervention (Latham & Crandall, 1991). They thus provide a basis for predicting, understanding, and influencing what people say and do. Practice provides evidence for the external validity of a scientific theory. Practice facilitates the abandonment, modification or improvement of theory through subsequent hypothesis testing in both the field and in laboratory settings. In short, practice suggests refinements to theory, and the refined theory provides an improvement in guidelines for effective practice. An illustration of this bidirectional refinement is the science and practice of goal setting theory in industrial-organizational (I/o) psychology. I/0 psychology explicitly embraces the scientist-practitioner model. GOAL SETTING THEORY The core findings of Locke and Latham's (1990) goal setting theory are that: (1) Specific high goals lead to higher performance than setting no goals or setting an abstract goal such as "do your best"; (2) There is a linear relationship between goal difficulty and performance. Thus the higher the goal the higher the performance; (3) Variables such as feedback, participation in decision making, and competition only affect performance to the extent that they lead to the setting of and commitment to specific high goals; (4) Three of the four mediators of the goal setting performance relationship are motives tional, namely direction, effort, and persistence; the fourth is cognitive, namely, task strategies. Moderators of the effect of goals on performance are ability, commitment, feedback, task complexity, and situational constr-aints. The immediate empirical origin of this theory can be found in Locke's (1964) doctor-al dissertation as well as a series of laboratory experiments that he conducted shortly thereafter (Locke, 1968). The dependent variables in his experiments included mathematical problems, making words from anagrams, as well as creating toys. On the scientist-practitioner continuum, Locke places himself on the scientific end, although he has had a practice in clinical psychology and continues to have a consulting relationship with organizations in the public and private sector. I, on the other hand, view myself on the practitioner side of the continuum although I conduct research in both field and laboratory settings, and I hold a full-time position in an academic institution. My consulting practice is incorporated in Canada and in the United States. Locke and I have collaborated productively for 25 years. We view one another as scientistspractitioners. PRACTICE AND SCIENCE OF GOAL SETTING In a critical review of the literature, Heneman and Schwab (1972, p. …

[1]  Gerard H. Seijts,et al.  The effect of distal learning, outcome, and proximal goals on a moderately complex task , 2001 .

[2]  G. Latham.  The Reciprocal Transfer of Learning from Journals to Practice , 2001 .

[3]  Gerard H. Seijts,et al.  The effects of goal setting and group size on performance in a social dilemma. , 2000 .

[4]  Gerard H. Seijts,et al.  The effects of proximal and distal goals on performance on a moderately complex task , 1999 .

[5]  A. Bandura.  Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control , 1997, Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy.

[6]  G. Latham,et al.  The Effect of Learning versus Outcome Goals on a Simple versus a Complex Task , 1996 .

[7]  Dwight D. Frink,et al.  A Review of the Influence of Group Goals on Group Performance , 1994 .

[8]  P. Frost,et al.  Doing Exemplary Research , 1992 .

[9]  F. H. Kanfer.  The scientist-practitioner connection : a bridge in need of constant attention , 1990 .

[10]  E. A. Locke,et al.  Work Motivation and Satisfaction: Light at the End of the Tunnel , 1990 .

[11]  P. Ackerman,et al.  Motivation and cognitive abilities: an integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition , 1989 .

[12]  T. Connolly,et al.  Goals, strategy development and task performance: Some limits on the efficacy of goal setting , 1989 .

[13]  Lloyd E. Sandelands.  International Review of Industrial & Organizational Psychology , 1988 .

[14]  R. Lord,et al.  Effects of participative vs assigned goals and feedback in a multitrial task , 1988 .

[15]  C. Shalley,et al.  Effects of Goal Difficulty, Goal-Setting Method, and Expected External Evaluation on Intrinsic Motivation , 1987 .

[16]  R. Rice,et al.  The Effects of Participation in Decision‐Making on Worker Satisfaction and Productivity: An Organizational Simulation1 , 1987 .

[17]  Miriam Erez,et al.  The Congruence of Goal-Setting Strategies With Socio-Cultural Values and its Effect on Performance , 1986 .

[18]  Timothy T. Baldwin,et al.  Posttraining Strategies for Facilitating Positive Transfer: An Empirical Exploration , 1986 .

[19]  P. Christopher Earley,et al.  The influence of component participation and role models on goal acceptance, goal satisfaction and performance , 1985 .

[20]  A. Bandura.  Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory , 1985 .

[21]  P. Christopher Earley,et al.  Influence of information, choice and task complexity upon goal acceptance, performance, and personal goals. , 1985 .

[22]  P. Christopher Earley,et al.  The Impact of Participation on Goal Acceptance and Performance: A Two-Step Model , 1985 .

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

[24]  Dennis L. Dossett,et al.  Goal Setting Participation and Leader Supportiveness Effects on Performance. , 1983 .

[25]  M Erez,et al.  The role of goal acceptance in goal setting and task performance. , 1983, Academy of management review. Academy of Management.

[26]  P. Lorenzi,et al.  The Effects of Participative Versus Assigned Goal Setting on Intrinsic Motivation , 1983 .

[27]  G. Latham,et al.  THE IMPORTANCE OF UNION ACCEPTANCE FOR PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT THROUGH GOAL SETTING , 1982 .

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

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

[30]  A. Bandura,et al.  Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. , 1981 .

[31]  Gary P. Latham,et al.  Increasing productivity through performance appraisal , 1981 .

[32]  Donald C. King,et al.  Do Goals Mediate the Effects of Incentives on Performance , 1980 .

[33]  Arthur P. Brief,et al.  Participation In Goal-Setting Programs: An Attributional Analysis , 1979 .

[34]  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 .

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

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

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

[38]  John M. Ivancevich,et al.  Different Goal Setting Treatments and Their Effects On Performance and Job Satisfaction , 1977 .

[39]  Gary P. Latham,et al.  BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATION SCALES FOR PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL PURPOSES , 1977 .

[40]  John M. Ivancevich,et al.  Effects of goal setting on performance and job satisfaction. , 1976 .

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

[42]  Edwin A. Locke,et al.  Increasing productivity and decreasing time limits: A field replication of Parkinson's law. , 1975 .

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

[44]  Gary P. Latham,et al.  IMPROVING JOB PERFORMANCE THROUGH TRAINING IN GOAL SETTING , 1974 .

[45]  Gary P. Latham,et al.  Effects of goal setting and supervision on worker behavior in an industrial situation. , 1973 .

[46]  Donald P. Schwab,et al.  Evaluation of research on expectancy theory predictions of employee performance. , 1972 .

[47]  Karl E. Weick,et al.  Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness , 1971 .

[48]  E. A. Locke.  Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives , 1968 .

[49]  Abraham Zaleznik,et al.  The Human Organization: Its Management and Value. , 1968 .

[50]  Chris Argyris,et al.  Integrating the Individual and the Organisation , 1964 .

[51]  K. Lewin,et al.  Field theory in social science , 1951 .

[52]  M. Frese,et al.  Action as the core of work psychology: A German approach. , 1994 .

[53]  Edwin A. Locke,et al.  Cognitive and motivational effects of participation: A mediator study , 1994 .

[54]  G. Latham.  Resolving a scientific dispute with Dr. Miriam Erez: Genesis, process, outcome, and reflection. , 1992 .

[55]  E. Weldon,et al.  Processes that mediate the relationship between a group goal and improved group performance. , 1991, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[56]  D. Dőrner,et al.  The investigation of action regulation in uncertain and complex situations. , 1991 .

[57]  Bernhard Wilpert,et al.  Applied psychology : an international review , 1989 .

[58]  Edwin A. Locke,et al.  The Determinants of Goal Commitment , 1988 .

[59]  Arnold Binder,et al.  Experiments as reforms , 1988 .

[60]  Carol S. Dweck,et al.  Motivational processes affecting learning. , 1986 .

[61]  E. A. Locke,et al.  Goal Setting: A Motivational Technique That Works! , 1984 .

[62]  William J. McGuire,et al.  A Contextualist Theory of Knowledge: Its Implications for Innovation and Reform in Psychological Research* , 1983 .

[63]  D. Bray,et al.  The assessment center in the measurement of potential for business management. , 1966, Psychological monographs.

[64]  D. Campbell,et al.  EXPERIMENTAL AND QUASI-EXPERIMENT Al DESIGNS FOR RESEARCH , 2012 .