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

The Role of Goal Acceptance

in Goal Setting and Task Performance^
MIRIAM EREZ
Technion-Israel Institute of Technology
FREDERICK H. KANFER
University of Illinois, Champaign
Goal setting has been widely used to enhance work motivation. This paper
discusses the importance of goal acceptance in moderating goal setting effects and shows how workers' acceptance of goals can be influenced at
various stages of the progression from goal setting to goal attainment. A
heuristic organization of goal acceptance strategies is proposed as a basis
for extending the theoretical framework underlying goal setting research.
organizational goals. The process of evaluating goals
with regard to their individual acceptability becomes
most important when variance in acceptance is
recognized. Despite an admonition that "more attention should be paid to what occurs between the
offering or presentation of the incentive and actual
performance; mainly the processes of evaluation and
goal setting" (Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968,
p. 483), the mechanisms by which goals affect performance have not yet been fully explored. It is the
purpose of the present paper to extend the theoretical
framework underlying goal setting research by focusing more closely on the relationship between presented goals and intentions (or individual goal setting) in Locke's formulation.

Goal setting is the only current approach to work

motivation that claims a beneficial effect on performance in 90 percent of the reported studies (Locke,
Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981). The theory is based
on the assumption that goals represent an end state
towards which a person strives and that they serve
as immediate regulators of action. The most significant finding has been that specific and hard goals
result in better task performance, given that the goals
are accepted. In fact, in studies in which variance in
goal acceptance was noted, subjects who did not accept the assigned goal were omitted from the experiment (Locke, Memo, & Katcher, 1978). Such procedures clearly equate the establishment of a goal and
a person's intention to reach it. However, goals commonly used in research are assigned externally by a
supervisor and are defined in terms of performance
standards, quotas, work norms, or deadlines. These
goals are primarily organizational goals and cannot
be presumed to be equal to the worker's self-set goals.
Varying discrepancies between externally set goals
and intentions to attain them imply that goal acceptance be considered as a moderator variable of central importance. Cases of low acceptance of organizational goais are common in life situations. In fact,
the whole area of leadership and management is
oriented towards motivating subordinates to accept

The Process of Goal Evaluation

Einhorn and Hogarth (1981) suggest that evaluation can be equated with choice, as indicated by the
following proposition. "Alternative x will be chosen
over>' if u (x)>w (j)." The first part of this proposition indicates an evaluation. If it is assumed that individuals aim at maximizing subjective expected
utilities (Vroom, 1964), goal evaluation can be approached by using a utility model of choice. The expectancy model postulates that a choice to act in a
certain way is based on the person's expectancy that
executing the chosen action will lead to the attainment of valued outcomes. It is formulated in terms

'The authors wish to express their appreciation to Charles L.

Hulin and Ruth Kanfer for their critical reading of an earlier draft
on this paper.

454

example, employees can be offered such contingent

outcomes as 10 percent salary increases to make
organizational goals more attractive to them. Thus,
what is a controlling variable from the organizational
point of view (the increase in salary) becomes the effect for the employees. Similarly, the independent
variable of a production increase from the employee's
point of view becomes the outcome for the organization. This reciprocal relationship suggests a need for
a two-way motivational model. Current theories of
work motivation have not yet provided such a reciprocal approach, although recently a theory was formulated by Bougon (1980) for the symbiotic relationship between two or more parties.

of V (valence), tne perceivea positive or negative

value ascribed to the possible outcome of an action
on the job; /(instrumentality), the perceived actionoutcome relationship; and E (expectancy), the perceived effort-action relationship. The utility of accepting a goal can be understood in the same way.
The expected value of accepting a goal is a function
of the expectancy that attainment of that goal will
lead to outcomes that are valuable to the decision
maker.
Defining goals in terms of their outcomes has three
important implications. First, the evaluation process
underlying the goal setting effect is extended to include the following components: setting goals,
monitoring behavior, and evaluating goal directed
behavior in reference to accomplishing goals and attaining their valued outcomes.
Second, the definition of goals as standards of proficiency (Locke et al., 1981) is no longer satisfactory
because it limits the motivational concept to the
dimension of magnitude or intensity. An additional
dimensiondirection toward or away from a goal
can be included when goals are evaluated for the
positive or negative outcomes. Maintaining both
direction and intensity in pursuit of a goal reflects
persistence. Hence the definition of goals in terms
of their outcomes facilitates the expansion of the
motivational concept of a goal from a unidimensional
to a three dimensional concept. Goal definition and
goal acceptance are not static; they can change during work and affect motivation and performance as
they do.
Third, goal outcomes can be evaluated differently by the person who assigns the goal and the person
who works toward attaining it. For example, an organizational goal of a 10 percent increase in employees' performance would result in a positive outcome for the organization of a 10 percent increase
in profit, and a negative outcome for the employees
of a 10 percent increase in effort. In most goal setting studies no distinaion has been made between the
value of the outcome for the person who assigns the
goal and the value for the person who works toward
its attainment. Differences in goal evaluation between
the two parties may not be relevant if both fully accept the goal. However, differences can play a critical
role when goal acceptance is low or absent. The
supervisor's task then lies in enhancing the valence
of the goal for the worker so that goal achievement
provides satisfactory outcomes for both parties. For

Locus of Goal Setting

The discussion has suggested that goal acceptance
depends on the perceived utilities of the goal.
Another source of infiuence on goal acceptance is the
perceived locus of goal setting. A goal is more likely
to be accepted when it is perceived to be under a person's control than when it is perceived as externally
imposed. Control satisfies a person's need to feel a
sense of mastery and personal competence (deCharms, 1968). Any threat to a person's sense of control results in reactance or noncompliance. Personal
control is experienced when an individual can choose
among options to attain utility (Brigham, 1979) or
when he or she can actively intervene to maximize
contingencies (Staw, 1980). In both cases perceived
personal control gains reward properties by its potential for maximizing utilities and avoiding the distress
of deprivation of desired outcomes (Renshon, 1979)
and aversive outcomes (Thompson, 1981). The exercise of control by choosing alternatives or infiuencing contingencies can become a goal in itself.
Several learning studies have demonstrated that
performance is improved more when students are
allowed to choose the material than in no-choice
situations (Liem, 1975; Perlmuter, Monty, & Kimble, 1971; Savage, Perlmuter, & Monty, 1979). Other
studies have shown that self-generated responses to
items on memory tasks (Slamencka & Graf, 1978),
the generation of information by subjects (Johnson
& Raye, 1981), or the attributions of scores to subjects' own emotional reaction (Kanfer, Karoly, &
Newman, 1974) result in significant advantages in
recall and performance. Moreover, performance is
lower for subjects who are deprived of a choice that
455

they had previously believed to be accessible than for

subjects offered no choice at all (Kanfer & Grimm,
1978; Perlmuter, Monty, & Cross, 1974). Subjects
work harder when they have control over performance-outcome contingencies and types of rewards
(Brigham, 1979). Subjects who could choose puzzles
to be solved and the time allotted for work on them
worked significantly longer after the formal end of
the experiment, compared to subjects who had no
choice (Zuckerman, Porac, Lathin, Smith, & Deci,
1978). Choice and self-control were found to be effective in reducing negative symptoms such as stress
and anxiety (Mandler & Watson, 1966) and in increasing 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 choice
based on the evaluation of the relationship between
(a) effort and goal behavior, and (b) goal behavior
and outcomes and the extent of control a person has
over the two contingencies. Numerous studies have
indicated that people prefer choice and control over
no choice or no control. Therefore, the effects of
presented goals should be enhanced by the degreee
to which a worker perceives him/herself as participating in choosing the goal and maintaining control over the goal-directed behavior.
This analysis suggests a conceptual model that
organizes the variables relevant for goal acceptance
along two dimensions. The first is the order of events
beginning with the goal setting process and progressing through the monitoring of goal directed behaviors
to the evaluation of goal attainment and goal out-

comes. This sequence parallels a aynamic problem

solving approach and, as described elsewhere (Kanfer
& Busemeyer, 1982), is best viewed as a recursive
rather than a linear progression to the goal. Difficulty
of the goal, specific information about the desired
goal state, and other parameters affect initial goal
setting. However, an intention to work for a goal
does not remain constant throughout the task. As the
work progresses, new information and the manner
in which it is obtained can modify the acceptance of
the previously established goal. Certain factors constitute the sequence-dimension of the model, as
shown in Table 1. They relate to different stages of
a task and affect the stability of goal acceptance.
They are: (1) goal setting; (2) feedback, the result of
monitoring performance progress; (3) performance
evaluation; and (4) criteria for goal attainment and
its consequences.
The second dimension represents the specified
source of control, ranging from an internal to an external locus of control. It indicates that the source
of information at various stages can infiuence an
employee's continued acceptance of the goal, thereby
affecting performance. In goal setting the degree of
worker participation infiuences goal acceptance. During task performance, responsibility for monitoring
progress may not be specified at all and feedback may
be absent. It may be given by a supervisor. It can
be obtained by jointly established means for monitoring progress, or it can be based on the employee's
private judgment. Similarly, evaluation of performance can be made by a supervisor or jointly by a
supervisor and an employee. It can be generated by
the employee, or no provision for evaluation can be

Table 1
A Matrix of Sources of Control at Various Points
in the Sequence from Goal Setting to the Consequences of Goal Attainment
Sequence of Events
Goal Setting

Source of Control
No Control

External

Joint participation

Self-generated

456

Monitoring

Evaluation

Attainment
and Outcome

facilitated by individually set goals, self-regulation,

and high individual benefits of goal-related outcomes. As the previous section suggests, maximizing goal acceptance in industrial organizations usually
involves a combination of strategies that vary along
a continuum of internal-external locus of control.

made. Finally, both goal attainment and goal outcomes (e.g., rewards) can be specified by management, jointly negotiated, specified by an employee,
or omitted altogether.
Different techniques for infiuencing goal-oriented
performance can be classified by locating them on
the two-dimensional matrix (Table 1). The criteria
for classification are: At what stage(s) of the sequence
is the technique applied and what actual control does
the worker have at this stage? For example, a procedure in which management imposes goals, monitors and evaluates progress, and defines rewards
would 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 management, joint evaluation, and joint decision about goal
states and rewards would be codified by A2 - Bl C2 - D2, or 2-1-2-2. A pattern in which goals and
rewards are set by an employer but all activities
leading to that goal are independently chosen by the
worker would be characterized as 1-3-3-1.

Participation in Goal Setting

Participation in goal setting and in decision making has been used as one strategy to overcome resistance to change. The process of influencing people
to accept change involves at least three factors
(Lewin, 1951): (a) a cognitive factor-knowledge
about and understanding of the the new requirements
and the rationale behind them; (b) an affective
factor-reduction of anxiety associated with the
unknown or the ambiguous, as well as the development of a significant sense of control over the situation; and (c) a behavioral factor-commitment to the
actions implied by acceptance of changes.
Participation in decision making and in goal setting has been suggested as an effective strategy to
cope with low acceptance. According to Lewin
(1951), PDM increases knowledge and understanding
by providing information on a person-to-person
level, by communicating inputs from all group
members, and by giving participants an opportunity
to appraise the information and to fit it with their
own view of the situation. PDM reduces anxiety,
gives the individual more control of the situation, and
creates commitment to the group decision. The earlier
studies conducted by Lewin (1943) demonstrated the
superiority of participative over nonparticipative
techniques in changing consumers' behavior and
eating habits. The method was successfully implemented in an industrial setting by Coch and
French (1948), demonstrating increased productivity in the participative conditions. The strategy can
be classified as a 2-2-2-2 type because employees and
supervisors jointly set up goals, monitored and
evaluated behavior, and decided on the piecerate per
time unit.
Neider (1980) claims that participation has a
positive effect on performance because it serves to
clarify the effort-performance linkage. Afieldexperiment conducted in four retail stores indicated that
the combination of a participative approach and an
individual incentive scheme resulted in the highest
performance level compared to three other groups:
participation only, incentives only, and no-treatment.

Strategies to Enhance Goal Acceptance

Goal setting research has related the informational
aspect of goals and peformance feedback (knowledge
of results) to improve performance levels. Yet, the
motivational aspects of goal outcomes and locus of
control have been overlooked. The traditional
strategy of goal setting (Locke, 1968) involves the
assignment of goals by a supervisor who also monitors and evaluates employee's behavior. The goals
are commonly assigned but presumed to be accepted
by employees, and no further incentives are used.
Thus, the traditional strategy can be classified as a
1-1-1-0 pattern.
High levels of acceptance have been reported in
most experiments. Consequently, cases of goal rejection and their causes and consequences have not been
investigated. Perhaps for this reason little attention
has been paid to the analysis of different goal setting strategies, their immediate effect on goal acceptance, and their distal effects on performance.
Goal setting strategies vary on a continuum from
external to internal control is noted above. In a tightly controlled system, compliance with external (assigned) goals can be forced by numerous means, such
as economic or social pressure or even physical coercion. In an open system, consistent with a society
oriented toward individualism, goal attainment is
457

Neider concluded that performance is significantly

improved when the linkage between effort and performance is clear and when valued outcomes are associated with the expenditure of effort.
Vroom and Yetton (1973) developed a model of
leadership suggesting practical criteria for using a
participative versus a nonparticipative managerial
strategy. Again, the criteria were based on the level
of information and on goal acceptance. A participative strategy was predicted to be more effective
when the leader lacks the necessary information to
solve the problem by himself and when acceptance
of the decision by subordinates is not certain, yet is
crucial for performance. Vroom and Yetton's model
implements the general rules of influence for a participative approach in the leader-subordinates domain.
The relative effects of participation versus mere information were examined by Wilier and Miller
(1976). They contrasted the effects of level of goal
attainment and level of satisfaction on length of stay
in a psychiatric hospital. Findings indicated that involvement in goal setting led to a significantly shorter
stay, higher attainment of the goal, and higher satisfaction than mere information without active involvement. The relative effect of the information versus the motivation component is a research issue that
has not yet been investigated. Yet it does not detract
from the significance of participation.
Unfortunately, most recent studies on participative
versus nonparticipative goal setting effects on performance neglected to examine the two crucial
attributesinformation and acceptancethat are
necessary for the evaluation of participation effectiveness. In a recent review of the literature on goal
setting, Locke et al. (1981) were able to cite only one
study (Hannan, 1975) that tested for the participative
effect on acceptance and found a positive relationship between participation and goal acceptance. An
examination of recent studies on participation in goal
setting indicates that they did not include the experimental conditions needed to test the specific
mechanisms that account for participation effectiveness. Groups did not vary in available information because goals were specifically defined and subjects usually were given practice trials. In addition,
acceptance, as reported by participants, was high and
there was no variance (Latham, Mitchell, & Dossett,
1978; Latham & Saari, 1979a, 1979b). In fact, Locke
et al. (1981) indicate that attempts to measure job

acceptance iu a miuiiici mai uiiiciciiuaics aiiiuiig experimental treatments had failed. Finally, data on the

subjects' anxiety levels were not collected in the

above-mentioned studies. However, there is no
reason to assume a major role for anxiety reduction
as the effective component in PDM; the tasks used
in the experiments were nonthreatening. For example, Latham and Yukl (1976) used typing; Latham
et al. (1978) asked for a number of uses for an object; Seeborg (1978) used a box construction task.
Based on the present state of research, it is suggested that the lack of significant differences between
participation and nonparticipation procedures indicated in the previous studies is limited to conditions
of high acceptance and high information. In fact, one
would not expect differences between the two methods when goal acceptance is already high, because
it is just such acceptance that participation aims to
produce. A recent study by Erez, Earley, and Huhn
(1982) suggests a two-step model of participation effectiveness. Participation was found to affect acceptance, which in turn affects performance. When acceptance was held constant, participation had no
significant effect on performance. Further research
in organizational psychology should explore the participation effect under various parametric conditions
that potentially arouse or sustain resistance to
change.
Coordinating External Control
with Internal Motivation

Due to situational constraints, participation in the

goal setting and evaluation process cannot always be
practiced in all four stages. For example, the most
desirable rewards generally remain under control of
management; thus the source of control remains external. In fact, cases of exclusively external or exclusively internal control are rare in Western societies,
because democratic values do not tolerate forced
compliance. Yet a certain amount of coordination
and control is necessary to maintain a well-functioning organization. Consequently, a proper mix of
social and personal control should yield the greatest
long term effectiveness and stability (Kanfer, 1979).
One strategy to achieve goal acceptance is to coordinate external control with personal motivation. The
conceptual relationship between intrinsic motivation
and locus of control has been developed in cognitive
theories by deCharms (1968), Festinger (1957), Deci
(1971, 1972) and Deci, Neziek, and Sheinman (1981).
458

tolerance of an aversive stimulus and reported a

significant effect of an explicit contract on performance. Tolerance was significantly higher for the explicit than for the nonexplicit contract group. Reports
of the successful use of contracts also are available
in cases of drug addiction (Boudin, 1972; Wisocki,
1972), weight control (Tobias, 1972), excessive smoking (Spring, Sipich, Trimble, & Goeckner, 1978),
marital discord (Jacobson, 1977), and other problem
behaviors.
In clinical practice and in social psychology
research, numerous other techniques have been
reported to infiuence subjects toward increased commitment to a course of action leading to a specified
goal. These include: use of paradoxical intervention
(Lazarus, 1976), goal and value clarification (Koberg
& Bagnall, 1976), foot-in-the-door techniques (Cialdini, Cacioppo, Bassette, & Miller, 1978; Freedman
& Fraser, 1966), and modeling and role playing
(Goldfried & Davison, 1976). In all of them a common element is the increased participation of the subject in some part of the total sequence from goal setting to goal and outcome attainment.

Tht tuorumation oi external control with internal

motivation can be examined with reference to rewards. DeCharms (1968) first proposed that when external rewards are given for an intrinsically motivated
activity, a person attributes control to an external
agent rather than to an internal source, and his/her
behavior becomes motivated by the external reward
rather than by intrinsic motivation. For example, the
use of money as an external reward shifts the locus
of causality from internal to external and does not
contribute to perceived competence. On the other
hand, some rewards, such as positive performance
evaluation or praise, may increase perceived competence and intrinsic motivation even though their
source is external. One possible explanation is that
approval as a reward may not be distinctly different
from the feeling of satisfaction that the person gets
from performing the activity; thus intrinsic motivation is strengthened.
Deci et al. (1981) suggested that reinforcers can be
modified to express either external or internal control by emphasizing either the controlling or the informational aspect of a reinforcer. The salience of
the former aspect strengthens perceived external control, whereas the salience of the latter aspect
strengthens perceived internal control because it provides individuals with information about their own
competence. It was empirically demonstrated (Deci
et al., 1981) that children were more intrinsically
motivated and developed higher self-esteem when
their teachers used rewards as information rather
than as controls. Hence, one strategy for coordinating external control with internal motivation is
by using rewards as a source of information rather
than as a source of control.
A second strategy to coordinate an external goal
with internal commitment to the goal is the use of
contracts. The source of infiuence that leads a person to make an intention statement, commitment, or
contract may be heavily external. Once made,
however, the contract may serve as a self-generated
goal. Consequently, attainment of goals and behavior
specified in the contract may be perceived as an
achievement of a self-established criterion and serves
as a reinforcer. Two mechanisms are suggested to explain the successful effect of contracts on goal attainment: first, the amount of information available
to the parties and, second, the commitment involved
in stating explicit intentions. Kanfer, Cox, Greiner,
and Karoly (1974) tested the effect of contracts on

Self-Regulation
Organizational procedures have some similarity to
therapeutic processes in clinical psychology in that
both aim to bring about a change in the person
toward conformity with more widely held social and
organizational norms and goals. Acceptance of therapeutic goals is a necessary precondition for most
treatments in clinical psychology. Yet, therapists have
long realized that attempts to change client behaviors
solely by external control are commonly rejected by
all but the most helpless clients. As a result of necessity, cognitive behavior therapists have worked to
develop strategies to enlist client cooperation and increase motivation to change. Self-management strategies have been found to be most powerful for
reducing resistance to change, setting therapeutic
goals that are accepted by the client and the therapist,
and for maintaining a high level of activity toward
achieving the goal. Self-regulation techniques also
can be useful in an organizational setting when
employees have to cope with adaptation to change
and commitment to organizational goals.
Similar to the sequence in the establishment and
maintenance of goal-oriented performance in industrial organizations, the clinical self-management
approach focuses on both the cognitive-informa459

tional and the behavioral components as they interact

in the progress from goal setting and commitment
to task execution. The therapist helps the client to
examine the current problem situation, to develop
realistic goals for change that are consistent with the
client's value system, and to develop and maintain
high motivation for goal attainment and for reassessment of goals throughout the process (Kanfer &
Grimm, 1980). The model suggests the need to attend to such diverse aspects as the attractiveness of
the goal, the perception of control in goal setting and
attainment, the capability of carrying out the
necessary behaviors, and the use of feedback about
progress in order to maintain efficient performance.
In Kanfer's (1970, 1971, 1980) feedback-loop
model of self-regulation it is postulated that a person establishes criteria for a particular behavior that
then serve both motivational and corrective functions. The model describes three stages of the selfregulation process. The first stage is triggered by any
event that interrupts or terminates an ongoing behavioral sequence. In this self-monitoring stage the person attends to his/her own behavior and its context.
In the second stage, self-evaluation, a comparison is
made between information obtained in the first stage
and the standard (goal) developed for the behavior.
This comparison yields information about the degree
of discrepancy between the actual performance and
the standard. In the third stage, feedback and reinforcement are generated, depending on the degree to
which the observed behavior has fallen short or exceeded the standards. This evaluation serves as a base
for further action such as self-correction, termination of a behavioral sequence, or reevaluation of the
standard. All three stages of the self-regulation model
use information and controlling techniques that are
provided by the person. The model therefore can be
classified as a 3-3-3-3 type, although at each stage
external infiuences can and do modify the selfregulatory functions. The model has been the basis
for the development of numerous self-control techniques in clinical practice. It has been used to conceptualize the effects of the continued interaction between environmental and personal controlling variables on behavioral outcomes. Empirical support of
the model and of the effectiveness of self-regulation
in maintaining and altering behavior has been summarized elsewhere (Kanfer, 1977, 1980).

Implications
Cases of implementation of self-management have
been demonstrated in clinical psychology but not in
organizational psychology. However, there is a growing recognition of the relevance of social learning
theories and the concept of self-regulation to
organizational psychology. Some researchers even
argue that self-management can be an important
substitute for leadership (Kerr & Jermier, 1978; Manz
& Sims, 1980).
The present authors recognize that no single current theory of motivation can explain all behavior.
Recommended, therefore, is not the replacement of
existing theories but the incorporation of the concepts
of self-regulation into current models of work motivation. It is well known that self-management cannot be implemented fully because of organizational
constraints. Yet, it is suggested that a comprehensive model of self-management can serve as a theoretical framework for the systematic evaluation of
present techniques for enhancement of work motivation.
The self-management model is anchored in two
contingencies, goal setting-goal accomplishment and
goal accomplishment-goal outcomes, and the person's control over these two contingencies. The process involves four steps: setting goals, monitoring,
evaluating, and strengthening (reinforcing) behavior.
The traditional model postulated by Locke in 1968
did not empirically examine these two contingencies
and made almost no use of self-regulatory processes.
It centered on the first stage of setting goals assuming high goal acceptance. Some progress has been
shown in the 1981 model (Locke et al., 1981). First,
the recognition of feedback as a necessary component of the goal setting model (Erez, 1977) accounts
for the goal setting-goal accomplishment contingency and for the goal accomplishment-goal outcomes
contingency, given that goal accomplishment satisfies
needs for self-growth. Second, the recognition of
financial incentives as the most powerful determinants of employees' performance (Locke, Feren,
McCaleb, Shaw, & Denny, 1980) accounts for the
goal accomplishment-goal outcomes contingency.
Thus, the two contingencies and self-regulation have
partially and implicitly, but not explicitly, been incorporated into the goal setting technique.
The traditional model of goal setting has been successfully implemented when high goal acceptance was
460

its predictions as it accounts for the variations in performance that may be associated with changes in goal
acceptance over the course of the goal-oriented
activity.
The concept of self-management is partially implemented by other techniques of work motivation
such as job enrichment, quality control, time
management, and the use of extrinsic and intrinsic
rewards. But its use in these techniques is implicit and
not theory-based. Application of the comprehensive
model of self-management should be useful in examining whether and to what degree these various
techniques overlap or complement each other in their
implementation of an approach that combines external control and self-control. For example, it can be
shown that time management centers around the selfmonitoring of behavior, whereas quality circles center
around self-evaluation and intrinsic rewards center
around self-reinforcement. A systematic evaluation
of existing techniques in the light of a common theoretical framework could contribute substantially
toward an integration and modification of present
techniques of work motivation.
Finally, successful utilization of self-regulation on
the job requires some preparatory steps on the part
of management. Following Brief and Aldag (1981),
an organization can improve performance if it creates
the opportunity for individual control, communicates
to employees that self-management is recommended, and trains employees in methods of setting goals,
monitoring, evaluating, and reinforcing their own
behavior.

T p
of the
traditional model and is particularly appropriate
when goal acceptance cannot be taken for granted
a priori.
The traditional model is concerned mainly with
changes in magnitude of goal difficulty and not so
much with changes in direction or persistence. Goal
acceptance becomes more crucial when all three goal
dimensionsmagnitude, direction, and persistenceare examined. In the latter case, levels of acceptance
also can be more clearly predicted when the source
of control is considered as a major variable than by
use of the goal-setting model alone.
To enhance goal acceptance and thereby improve
task performance, it therefore is recommended that
the level of self-regulation be systematically and explicitly increased at each successive stage of the goal
evaluation process. Such an approach should expand
the utility of the goal setting model beyond situations
in which continued high goal acceptance can be
assumed.
The matrix suggested for organizing strategies for
improving work motivation points to the importance
of considering the component processes, played out
over time, as a worker moves from start to completion of a goal-oriented activity. Throughout the temporal sequence, feedback and reevaluation can enhance or impede motivation to perform. Research on
the relative importance of the contributions of such
components as the role of external-internal control
over feedback or evaluation of progress should further enrich the goal setting model. It would refine

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

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

Boudin, H. M. Contingency contracting as a therapeutic tool in

the deceleration of amphetamine use. Behavior Therapy, 1972,
3, 604-608.

Coch, L. & French, J. R. P. Overcoming resistance to change.

Human Relations, 1948. 1, 512-532.

Bougon, M. G. Schemata, leadership, and organizational behavior.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, 1980.

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

Brief, A. P., & Aldag, R. J. The "seir' in work organizations:

A conceptual review. Academy of Management Review, 1981,
6, 75-88.

Deci. E. L. Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic

motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971,
18, 105-115.

Brigham, T. A. Some effects of choice on academic performance.

In L. C. Perlmuter & R. A. Monty (Eds.), Choice and perceived
control. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1979,
131-142.

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

461

Deci, E. L., Neziek, & Sheinman, L. Characteristics of the

rewarder and intrinsic motivation of the rewardee. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1981,40, 1-10.

Kanfer, F. H., & Grimm, L. G. Freedom of choice and behavioral

change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1978,
46, 873-878.

Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. Behavioral decision theory:

Processes of judgment and choice. Annual Review of
Psychology, 1981, 32, 53-88.

Kanfer, F. H., & Grimm, L. G. Managing clinical change: A process model of therapy. Behavior Modification, 1980,4,419-444.
Kanfer, F. H., & Seidner, M. Self-control factors enhancing
tolerance of noxious stimulation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 1973, 25, 381-389.

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

Kanfer, F. H., & Karoly, P., & Newman, A. Source of feedback,

observational learning, and attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 30-38.

Erez, M.. Earley, P. C , & Hulin, C. The impact of participation

upon goal acceptance and performance: A two-step model.
Manuscript submitted for publication, 1982.

Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. Substitutes for leadership: Theirmeaiiing

and measurement. Organizational Behavior of Human Performance, 1978, 22, 375-403.

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

Row, Peterson, 1957.
Freedman. J. L., & Fraser, S. Compliance without pressure: The
foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1966, 4, 195-202.

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 relationships in goal-setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1979a,
64, 151-156.

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.

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

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

Latham, G. P., & Yukl, G. A. Effects of assigned and participative

goal-setting on performance and job satisfaction. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 1976,61, 166-171.

Jacobson. N. S. Problem-solving and contingency contracting in

the treatment of marital discord. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, \911, 45, 92-100.

Latham, G. P., Mitchell, J. R., & Dossett, D. L. Importance of

participative goal-setting and anticipated rewards on goal difficulty and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
1978, 63, 163-171.

Johnson. M. K., & Raye, C. L. Reality monitoring. Psychological

Review, 1981, 88, 67-85.
Kanfer, F. H. Self-regulation: Research, issues and speculations.
In C. Neuringer and J. L. Michael (Eds.), Behavior modification in clinical psychology. New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts. 1970, 178-220.

Lazarus, A. A. Multi-modal behavior therapy. New York: Springer

Publishing Company, 1976.
Lewin, K. Forces behind food habits and methods of change.
Bulletin of the National Resource Council, 1943, 108, 35-65.

Kanfer. F. H. The maintenance of behavior by self-generated

stimuli and reinforcement. In A. Jacobs & L. B. Sachs (Eds.),
The psychology of private events. New York: Academic Press,
1971. 39-57.

Lewin, K. Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row,
1951.
Lieberkind, S. C , & Paul, L. A. Psychological and physiological
mechanisms of pain. Annual Review of Psychology, 1977, 28,
41-60.

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

Liem, G. R. Performance and satisfaction as affected by personal

control over salient decisions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1975, 31, 232-240.

Kanfer, F. H. Personal control, social control and altruism, or

can society survive the age of individualism? American
Psychologist, 1979, 34, 231-239.

Locke, E. A. Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1968, 3,
157-189.

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.

Locke, E. A., Cartledge, N., & Koeppel, J. Motivational effects

of knowledge of results: A goal-setting phenomenon?
Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 70, 474-485.

Kanfer, F. H., & Busemeyer, J. R. The use of problem-solving

and decision making in behavior therapy. Clinical Psychology
Review, 1982, 2, 239-266.

Locke, E. A., Mento, A. J., & Katcher, B. L. The interaction of

ability and motivation in performance: An exploration of the
meaning of moderators. Personnel Psychology, 1978, 31,
269-280.

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

462

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

Slamencka, N. J., & Graf, P. The generation effect: Delineation

of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Learning and Memory, 1978, 4, 592-604.

Locke, E. A., Feren, D. B., McCaleb, V. M., Shaw, K. N., &

Denny, A. T. The relative effectiveness of four methods of
motivating employee performance. In K. D. Duncan, M. M.
Gruneberg, & D. Wallis (Eds.), Changes in working life. New
York: Wiley, 1980, 363-387.

Spring, F. L., Sipich, J. F., Trimble, R. V., & Goeckner, D. J.

Effects of contingency and noncontingency contracts in the context of self-control-oriented smoking modification program.
Behavior Therapy. 1978, 9, 962-968.

Mandler, G., & Watson, D. L. Anxiety and the interruption of

behavior. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and behavior. New
York: Academic Press, 1966, 263-288.

Staw, B. M. Rationality and justification in organizational life.

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

Manz, C. C , & Sims, H. P., Jr. Self-management as a substitute

for leadership: A social learning theory perspective. Academy
of Management Review, 1980, 5, 361-367.

Thompson, S. C. Will it hurt less if I can control it? A complete

answer to a simple question. Psychological Bulletin, 1981, 90,
89-101.

Miller, S. M. A minimax theory of controllability and human

stress: 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.

Tobias, L. L. The relative effectiveness of behavioristic

bibliotherapy, contingency contracting, and suggestions of selfcontrol in weight reduction. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.
University of Illinois, Champaign, 1972.
Turk, D. C. Cognitive behavioral technique in the management
of pain. In J. P. Foreyt & D. P. Rathjen (Eds.), Cognitive
behavior therapy. New York: Plenum Press, 1978, 199-232.

Neider, L. An experimental field investigation utilizing an expectancy theory view of participation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 1980, 26, 425-442.

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

Sons, 1964.

Perlmuter, L. C , Monty, R. A., & Cross, P. M. Choice as a

disrupter of performance in paired-associate learning. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 1974, 102, 170-172.

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

Perlmuter, L. C , Monty, R. A., & Kimble, G. A. Effect of choice

on paired-associate learning. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1971, 91, 47-53.

Wilier, B., & Miller, M. H. Client involvement in goal-setting and

its relationship to therapeutic outcome. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 1976, 32, 687-690.

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.

Wisocki, P. A. The successful treatment of a heroin addict by

covert conditioning techniques. Journal of Behavior Therapy
and Experimental Psychiatry, 1972, 4, 55-61.
Zuckerman, M. Porac, J., Lathin, D., Smith, R., & Deci, E. I.
On the importance of self-determination for intrinsically
motivated behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
1978, 4, 443-446.

Savage, R. E., Perlmuter, L. C , & Monty, R. A. Effert of reduction in the amount of choice and perception of control on learning. In L. C. Perlmuter & R. A. Monty (Eds.), Choice and
perceived control. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 1979, 91-106.
Seeborg, I. S. The influence of employee participation in job
redesign. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1978, 14,
201-210.

Miriam Erez is Associate Professor on the Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.
Frederick H. Kanfer is Professor of Psychology in the
Department of Psychology,
University of Illinois,
Champaign.

463