Journal of Applied Psychology1987, Vol. 72, No. 2, 212-220

Copyright 1987 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.002l-90IO/87/$00.75

Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects,and Proposals for Future Research

John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. KleinGraduate School of Business Administration, Michigan State University

The purpose of this article is to examine the role of goal commitment in goal-setting research.

Despite Locke's (1968) specification that commitment to goals is a necessary condition for the effec-

tiveness of goal setting, a majority of studies in this area have ignored goal commitment. In addition,

results of studies that have examined the effects of goal commitment were typically inconsistent with

conceptualization of commitment as a moderator. Building on past research, we have developed a

model of the goal commitment process and then used it to reinterpret past goal-setting research. We

show that the widely varying sizes of the effect of goal difficulty, conditional effects of goal difficulty,

and inconsistent results with variables such as participation can largely be traced to main and inter-

active effects of the variables specified by the model.

The major finding emanating from the widespread researchon goal setting is that difficult and specific goals lead to higherlevels of performance than do easy or vague goals (Locke, Shaw,Saari, & Latham, 1981). There is some evidence to suggest,however, that one or more variables may act to moderate therelation between goal difficulty and task performance. First, thegoal difficulty effect does not always result (e.g., Motowidto,Loehr, & Dunnette, 1978; OMham, 1975; Organ, 1977), andwhen it does, the size of the effect varies widely, from .03 (Dos-sett, Latham, & Saari, 1980) to .77 (Locke & Bryan, 1967). Sec-ond, the effect of goal difficulty, especially in field settings, tendsto be conditional on the presence or the level of other variables(Carroll & Tosi, 1970; Dossett, Latham, & Mitchell, 1979; Hall& Hall, 1976; Ivancevich & McMahon, 1977; Latham & Saari,1979a). Third, results are highly inconsistent with respect tothe role played by other key variables such as monetary incen-tives (e.g., Locke, Bryan, & Kendall, 1968, vs. Pritchard &Curts, 1973), participation (Dossett et al., 1979, vs. Latham &Yukl, 1976) and individual differences (French, Kay, & Meyer,1966, vs. Searfoss & Monczka, 1973) in the goal-setting pro-cess.

Goal commitment was one of the first potential moderatingvariables recognized by Locke (1968), who stated that peoplewho "stop trying when confronted by a hard task (i.e., thoseuncommitted to a goal) are people who have decided that thegoal is impossible to reach and who no longer are trying forthat goal" (p. 164). The notion that goal commitment was anecessary condition for the goal difficulty effect was central toearly theorizing on goal setting, because at that time, a numberof empirical studies supported achievement motivation theory

The authors are indebted to Daniel Ilgen, Edwin Locke, Charles Wil-

liams, and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an ear-

lier draft of this article. The authors would also like to thank Colleen

Kniffen, who provided technical assistance.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John

R. Hollenbeck, Graduate School of Business Administration, Michigan

State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824.

(Atkinson & Feather, 1966) and its emphasis on goals of moder-ate difficulty. The results of these studies, which apparently con-tradict goal-setting theory, were attributed by Locke (1968) toa lack of commitment to the difficult goals set in studies ofachievement motivation.

Goal commitment, according to Locke et al, (1981), refers tothe determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies theextension of effort, over time, toward the accomplishment of anoriginal goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or tolower the original goal (Campion & Lord, 1982). In addition,because of the central importance of goal difficulty in determin-ing performance, our emphasis is on commitment to difficultgoals, rather than to goals in general. There is little in the litera-ture to advocate the use of easy goals; hence, the commitmentto such goals is not a major issue.

Commitment to difficult goals should also be distinguishedfrom acceptance of difficult goals, which merely refers to theinitial use of a goal assigned by another person as a referent.Goal acceptance does not necessarily imply that the individualis bound to the standard. The present review deals conceptuallywith goal commitment because commitment is more criticalfor predicting performance. For example, one can initially ac-cept a difficult goal and yet not demonstrate subsequent com-mitment to that goal over time. If commitment is a necessarycondition, then the effect of goal difficulty would not be forth-coming in such an instance, despite initial goal acceptance. Al-though these concepts are distinguishable, note that (a) there isa considerable overlap between them, (b) they have been usedalmost interchangeably in past research, and (c) there is notcomplete consensus as to the separateness of these constructs.Because they have been used interchangeably in the past, it isimpossible to determine whether the original authors are usingcommitment or acceptance as we have defined. Therefore, forpurposes of this article, any study mentioning either commit-ment or acceptance is treated as dealing with commitment, andhence is included here.

Given the critical role assigned to goal commitment by earlyresearchers on goal setting, and both theoretical and empirical

212

GOAL COMMITMENT AND THE GOAL-SETTING PROCESS 213

evidence (Erez & Zidon, 1984; Locke, 1982; Organ, 1977) thatsuggest that goal commitment is inversely related to goaldifficulty, the assessment of goal commitment should haveplayed a prominent role in subsequent goal-setting research.Rather, in the majority of empirical studies reviewed (66 of 109,or 61%), no mention whatsoever is made of goal commitment.*In another 12% of these studies, goal commitment was men-tioned but never empirically assessed. In the remaining studies,goal commitment has been treated in many different ways (e.g.,as a main effect variable), generally inconsistent with Locke's(1968) formulation. To date only three studies have examinedcommitment and tested its role as a moderator of the goal-difficulty-performance relation.

The purpose of this article is to use past empirical researchand expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) to develop a model of theantecedents and consequences of commitment to difficult goals.This model is then used to reinterpret the results of past goal-setting research (where goal commitment was not explicitlyconsidered) and to provide direction for future research. Thearticle is organized into four subsections dealing with (a) pastempirical research, (b) the expectancy theory model, (c) rein-terpretation of past research, and (d) future research directions.

Past Empirical Research on Goal Commitment

Because it is our intention to develop a model of (a) the conse-quences of goal commitment that is consistent with Locke's(1968) moderator formulation and (b) the antecedents of com-mitment to difficult goals consistent with expectancy theory,only two lines of past research are examined here. First, we de-scribe the handful'of studies that have attempted to test themoderating effects of goal commitment on the goal-difficulty-performance relation, and second, we examine research thathas treated goal commitment as a dependent variable.

Studies Treating Goal Commitment as a ModeratorVariable

Only three studies have tested Locke's (1968) conception ofgoal commitment as a moderator of the goal-difficulty-task-performance relation. Erez and Zidon (1984) found a moderat-ing effect for goal commitment on the goal-difficulty-perfor-mance relation, whereas Frost and Mahoney (1976) and Yukland Latham (1978) did not Explaining these inconsistent re-sults is difficult for several methodological reasons. First, eachof these studies used only a single-item measure of commit-ment, and therefore, differences in reliability of measurementcannot be assessed. Second, because each study used a differentitem, the relative validity of each becomes questionable. Third,the studies also differ in timing of measurement, in that Erezand Zidon (1984) and Yukl and Latham (1978) measured com-mitment prior to having subjects engage in the task, whereasFrost and Mahoney (1976) measured it after task completion.Self-reports of goal commitment collected after task comple-tion when the subject has complete information on both thenature of the task and the outcome relative to the goal, arehardly equivalent to measures obtained prior to subjects' engag-ing in the task. Finally, differential range restriction could alsoexplain the discrepant results. Erez and Zidon (1984) designed

their study to ensure variation in goal commitment, whereasYukl and Latham (1978) stated that only 2% of subjects werenot committed to their assigned goal. Frost and Mahoney(1976) failed to report the amount of variation in their measureof commitment. Suffice to say that there have been few, if any,adequate tests of Locke's original conceptualization of goalcommitment as a necessary condition for the goal difficultyeffect.

Studies Treating Goal Commitment as a DependentVariable

One commonly investigated antecedent of goal commitmenthas been participation, with most studies hypothesizing a posi-tive relation between these variables. A series of studies by La-tham and his associates (Dossett el al., 1979; Latham & Mar-shall, 1982; Latham, Mitchell, & Dossett, 1978; Latham &Saari, 1979a, 1979b; Latham & Steele, 1983; Latham, Steele,& Saari, 1982) have not supported this hypothesis; it has beensupported, however, in studies by Erez, Early, and Hulin (1985)and by French et al. (1966).

The studies just described have largely searched for the deter-minants of goal commitment without the guidance of any wide-ranging theory. Other researchers, although they did not all ex-amine goal commitment per se, have used an expectancy theoryframework (Vroom, 1964) to study the goal-setting process.Dachler and Mobley (1973), Kalb and Boyatzis (1970), Locke,Frederick, Lee, and Bobko (1984), and Steers (1975) found thatthe expected probability of obtaining a goal was positively re-lated to goal commitment. Men to, Cartledge, and Locke (1980)suggested, however, that commitment may drop off at the ex-treme upper end of the expected probability continuum.

Valence, another major component of expectancy theory, hasalso been reported to be a determinant of goal commitment.All three of the relevant studies have found positive relations(Dossett et al., 1979; Memo et al., 1980; Oldham, 1975). Insummary, expectancy theory may be a useful approach for in-creasing our understanding of the determinants of commitmentto difficult goals.

Expectancy Theory Model of the Goal

Commitment Process

The possibility of integrating expectancy theory and goal-set-ting theory via goal commitment has been recognized pre-viously (Dachler & Mobley, 1973; Dossett et al., 1979; Kalb &Boyatzis, 1970; Mento et al., 1980; Oldham, 1975; Steers,1975). Furthermore, Locke et al. (1981) suggested that "the fac-tors that affect goal acceptance . . . fit easily into two majorcategories, which are the main components of expectancy the-ory" (p. 144). Locke et al. (1981) then listed variables likely toaffect expectations of goal attainment and attractiveness of goalattainment. One purpose of the model presented here is to ex-pand on this earlier work by (a) suggesting additional variableslikely to be associated with either the attractiveness or expec-

1A table containing, describing, and categorizing the treatment of

goal commitment is available from the first author, along with a com-plete reference list identifying the 109 studies reviewed.

214 JOHN R. HOLLBNBECK AND HOWARD }. KLEIN

tancy of goal attainment and (b) differentiating between situa-tional and personal determinants of attractiveness and expec-tancy. The value of this differentiation lies in the ability to spec-

ify person by situation interactions that are the cornerstone ofinteractional psychology (Ekehammar, 1974; Endler & Mag-nusson, 1976). The recognition that such interactions may existwill be of central importance in a later section of this article.A second purpose of this model is to reinterpret results fromprevious goal-setting studies in which the goal difficulty effectdid not emerge or was conditional on the presence of other vari-ables. Although commitment was not directly measured inthese studies, the model developed here proposes that manystudies have, in fact, shown the goal commitment by goaldifficulty interaction. That is, conditional results or weak effectsizes can be directly attributed to the variables measured inthese studies, which this model proposes as antecedents of com-mitment.

Figure 1 presents a model of the antecedent factors that mayenhance the commitment to difficult goals. The antecedents ofcommitment are broken down first by whether they affect at-tractiveness or expectancy, and then further delineated bywhether they are of a personal or situational nature. Note thatthe model is meant to illustrate the way in which many variablespreviously studied in this area could be theoretically linked togoal commitment, and is not meant to be a comprehensive orexhaustive list. Figure 1 also suggests, in line with the formula-tions of Locke (1968), that the primary consequence of goalcommitment is to moderate the relation between goal difficultyand task performance. Under certain conditions goal difficultymay generate a main eflect. For example, when only difficultgoals are established, all else being equal, greater commitmentwill lead to greater performance (Locke et al., 1984). However,when the entire range of goals are represented in a sample (i.e.,easy, moderate, difficult) no such main effect will be in evi-dence.

Situational Factors Affecting the Attractiveness of GoalAttainment

Several variables discussed by Salancik (1977) in the contextof organizational commitment are worth noting here. One as-pect of the situation that tends to increase commitment accord-ing to Salancik is piMicncss, that is, the extent to which signifi-cant others are aware of one's goal. It is easy to abandon a goalknown only to oneself. If, however, many significant others areaware of the goal, then abandoning this goal in midstream issomewhat unattractive because it makes one appear inconsis-tent. Empirical support for this consistency prediction can be

found in nonorganizational studies by Dweck and Gilliard(1975) and Pallak and Cummmgs(1976).

A second important factor related to commitment men-tioned by Salancik (1977) is volition, defined as the extent to

which an individual is free to engage in a behavior. Volitionshould be closely associated with goal origin in that self-setgoals imply volition, assigned goals imply little volition, andparticipatively set goals lie somewhere in between these two ex-tremes. Assigned goals can be abandoned without appearing in-consistent inasmuch as the goal can easily be discounted as un-realistic and the person assigning it can easily be discounted as

being out of touch. Such a cognitive response is less likely whenthe person chooses the goal. Empirical support for this proposi-tion comes from research by Erez et al. (1985). In both a labora-tory and a field setting, they showed that groups allowed to es-tablish their own goals exhibited higher goal commitment rela-tive to groups that were assigned goals.

Explicitness is a third factor described by Salancik (1977) asbeing a key determinant of commitment. As recognized earlyin the goal-setting literature, vague goals are not as effective inbringing about high performance (Locke, 1968). Salancik's(1977) theory, however, provides the rationale for why these

vague goals may be of little value. There are innumerable out-comes that could be consistent with a vague goal. Reducingone's weight by 1 ounce is consistent with the goal of "losingsome weight this year." The number of outcomes consistentwith the goal of "losing 10 pounds by August 1" is much smaller.

Many other situational factors could act to increase goal com-mitment by increasing the attractiveness of goal attainment.The importance of reward structures in influencing behaviorhas been widely documented in the field of organizational be-havior. For example, the amount of authority that supervisorsnave in terms of rewarding or punishing subordinates may berelated to goal commitment. This would be analogous to con-clusions made in the feedback literature that the desire to re-spond to feedback is related to the power of the feedback source(Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979). Competition may also be relatedto goal commitment. Pressure generated by competitive situa-tions may increase the desire to reach a goal beyond that whichwould be the case in the absence of such pressures. There is evenempirical evidence to suggest that competition leads to goalchoices that are unreau'stically high (Forward & Zander, 1971).

Personal Factors Affecting the Attractiveness of GoalAttainment

Figure 1 also specifies several personal variables that arelikely to lead to greater commitment to difficult goals by in-creasing the attractiveness of goal attainment. These variablesare classified as personal in the sense that variation across indi-viduals on these dimensions stems more from factors within theindividual, as opposed to factors within the situation, and dealswith constructs such as needs, beliefs, attitudes, and personality

traits.Individuals with high need for achievement are characterized

by McClelland (1961) as having a preference for challengingtasks, for immediate feedback, and for situations in which it ispossible to take personal responsibility. Given this description,it might be predicted that individuals with high need forachievement would exhibit greater commitment to challenginggoals than would those with low need for achievement.

Moreover, empirical evidence suggests that variables that arepositively related to the level of goal choice (i.e., degree ofdifficulty) under self-set goal conditions are also related to com-mitment to assigned goals (Early, 1985; Hollenbeck & Brief, inpress). Therefore, studies showing personal variables affectinggoal-level choices will be explicitly interpreted here as providingindirect evidence that those same variables would be related togoal commitment (Campbell, 1982). Hence, studies that indi-cate that subjects with high need for achievement set more

GOAL COMMITMENT AND THE GOAL-SETTING PROCESS 215

Situations!factors

Personalfactors

Situationalfactors

Personalfactors

Publicness

Volition

Explicitness

Rewardstructures

Competition

1 Y

Need forAchievement

Endurance

Type APersonality

OrganizationalCommitment

Job involvement

1

Attractiveness of Goat Attainment

Social influence:others' goals,

goal commitment,or performance

Task complexity

Performanceconstraints

Supervisorsupportiveness

1 Y

Ability

Pastsuccess

Self-esteem

Locus ofcontrol

Expectancy of Goal Attainment

IGoal Commitment

Goal Level Task Performance

Figure 1. Expectancy theory model of the antecedents and consequences of goal commitment.

difficult goals than their counterparts with tow need for achieve-ment (Yukl & Latham, 1978) provide indirect evidence thatneed for achievement may be related to commitment to difficultgoals.

Another personality variable that may be relevant to goalcommitment is endurance. According to Jackson (1974) the in-dividual high in endurance is "willing to work long hours;doesn't give up quickly on a problem; persevering even in theface of great difficulty; patient and unrelenting" (p. 6). Individ-uals high on this trait would seem much less likely to abandondifficult goals than those low in endurance.

A final personality variable that might relate to goal commit-ment is the degree of Type A behavior pattern. Type A peopleare characterized as being aggressive and competitive, setting

high standards, and putting themselves under constant timepressures (Friedman & Rosenman, 1974). It would appear thatType A individuals, when faced with difficult goals, are muchmore likely to redouble their efforts than to lower their goals oraspirations. Indirect evidence for this link can be found in astudy by Taylor, Locke, Lee, and Gist (1984), who found thatType A individuals set more difficult goals than Type B individ-uals.

An individual's work-related attitudes could also be expectedto relate to goal commitment by increasing the attractivenessof goal attainment. For example, organizational commitmenthas been denned as the relative strength of an individual's iden-tification with and involvement in a particular organization.Given their strong identification with organizational goals in

216 JOHN R. HOLLENBECK AND HOWVRD i. KLEIN

general, it is quite likely that individuals high in organizationalcommitment would also be committed to operative goals estab-lished for them by the organization. Furthermore, the willing-ness to extend considerable effort for the organization suggeststhat in the face of obstacles, organizationally committed work-ers would tend to increase their efforts rather than modify theirgoals.

Job involvement is an attitude similar to organizational com-mitment, but the focus of identification is with the job itselfrather than any one particular organization. Individuals whoare highly job involved are distinguished by a strong associationbetween their job performance and their self-esteem. Becauseperformance on the job is central to their self-concept, highlyjob involved individuals would be more likely to demonstratecommitment to challenging work goals than those low in jobinvolvement.

Situational Factors Affecting the Expectancy of Goal

Attainment

One situational factor likely to have a strong impact on goalcommitment because of its effects on expectancy, is social in-fluence with respect to (a) others* performance (b) others' goals,and (c) others' goal commitment. For example, several studieshave shown that knowledge of how others have performed in-fluences self-set goal difficulty (Festinger, 1942; Lewin, Dembo,Festinger & Sears, 1944; Rakestraw & Weiss, 1981). Given thisrelation, it could be argued that information about others' per-formance would also be related to commitment to difficultgoals, regardless of their origin. Indeed, Early and Kanfer(1985) manipulated the performance levels of a role model andfound that subjects who viewed a high-performing role modeldemonstrated higher goal commitment than those who saw atow-performing model. Similarly, Bandura (1977) has shownthat individuals will set high personal performance standardswhen they see others adopting such standards. An individual'scommitment to difficult goals probably will be higher whenthose around him or her have similar goals, as opposed to whenthose around him or her have easier goals. Finally and mostdirectly, the level of goal commitment shown by others may in-fluence the individual's level of goal commitment. It is unlikelythat an individual will maintain goal commitment when themajority of his or her co-workers are perceived as quickly aban-doning goals.

Task characteristics may also be related to goal commitment.For example, on difficult or complex tasks, the link betweeneffort and performance will not be as strong as on simple tasks.Research by Barley (1985) and Steers and Porter (1974) hasdocumented this relation between task characteristics and goalcommitment One aspect of a task that may be critical for deter-mining goal commitment may be the extent to which there area number of external influences on task outcomes. Peters andO'Connor (1980) have emphasized the influence of situationalconstraints on work outcomes such as performance and satis-faction. The presence of such performance constraints is alsolikely to diminish the expectancy of goal attainment. Goal com-mitment would be low under such circumstances because fail-ure to achieve the goal can be readily attributed to factors be-yond the individual's control.

Finally, supervisor supportiveness may be related to goalcommitment. Supervisor supportiveness was defined by La-tham and Saari (1979b) as, among other things, friendliness andlistening to employees' opinions. Difficult goals assigned bysuch supervisors will probably be perceived as fairer and morerealistic, causing goal commitment to be higher. In support ofthis contention, Oidham (1975) directly showed that a measureof supervisory trust was positively correlated with goal commit-ment. Latham and Saari (1979b) provided indirect evidence inthat supportive supervision was positively associated with se-lected goal level for subjects in participative conditions. In thislatter study, the low alpha reliability (.S3) associated with thecommitment measure precluded detecting more direct evi-dence.

Personal Factors Affecting the Expectancy of Goal

Attainment

Two personal variables likely to result in increased commit-ment to difficult goals are perceived ability and past success.The extensive literature on level of aspiration (Frank, 1941)documents the fact that, in general, future goals are higher fol-lowing success than when following failure. Also, a number ofstudies have used self-set goals and found that self-set goal levelsare strongly related to ability (Campion & Lord, 1982; Lockeet al., 1984; Matsui, Okada, & Kakuyama, 1982). Similarly,subjects with high-perceived task-related ability (or self-effi-cacy) would be predicted to have higher expectations for achiev-ing difficult goals, and thus higher commitment to those goalsrelative to low-ability subjects. Empirical support for this hy-pothesized relation is evidenced in a study by Locke et al.(1984) in a laboratory setting.

Hall's (1971) psychological success theory posits a linkage be-tween self-esteem and goal commitment Although not explic-ity stated in Halls's model, the higher self-confidence that char-acterizes high-self-esteem persons is probably associated withhigh-perceived probabilities for attaining difficult goals. Empir-ical research on this model has shown that high self-esteem isassociated with the choice of high goal levels (Hall & Foster,1977).

Finally, locus of control may also be a personality variablethat is related to goal commitment. Individuals with an externallocus of control, because of their perceived inability to affecttheir environment, would tend to show low goal commitment.Individuals with an internal locus of control, on the other hand,when faced with a difficult goal would perceive it possible, butmerely requiring more effort. Perhaps it was for this reason thatin a study by Yukl & Latham (1978), employees with an inter-nal locus of control were willing to set more difficult goals thanwere employees with an external locus of control.

Interactions Across Categories

The model shown in Figure 1 attempts to delineate, moreconcretely, the direct antecedents and consequences of goalcommitment. Although only main effects have been discussedhere, the possibility for interactions both within and across cat-egories should be recognized.

Expectancy theorists (cf. Vroom, 1964) clearly predict an in*

GOAL COMMITMENT AND THE GOAL^ETTING PROCESS 217

teraction between attractiveness and expectancy, therefore, onemight predict interactions between situational characteristicsthat differentially affect attractiveness and expectancy. For ex-ample, volition may be related to commitment only where thereare not substantial constraints on performance. Where thereare external constraints on performance, abandoning the origi-nal goal appears neither inconsistent nor irrational becausethese external factors make the original goal unrealistic.

Similar interactions could be specified between personal vari-ables that differentially affect attractiveness and expectancy.Self-esteem, for example, may be related to goal commitmentonly when it occurs in conjunction with job involvement. Highself-esteem individuals who are uninvolved with their work maynot be as confident in being successful in the work role. Indeed,it is often found that task-specific self-esteem is a much betterpredictor of work behavior than is generalized self-esteem(Tharenou& Marker, 1982).

Person by situation interactions within attractiveness or ex-pectancy categories are also possible. An interaction may existbetween competition and Type A behavior pattern in determin-ing the attractiveness of the goal attained, in that competitionfails to motivate Type B individuals (Friedman & Rosenman,1974). Expectancy of goal attainment might additionally be aninteractive function of social influence and past performance.Rakestraw and Weiss (1981) found, for instance, that only sub-jects without prior task experience were influenced by a model'sgoal-setting behavior. When an individual has a long history ofpast performance, immediate social influence may not affectgoal commitment. Finally, although not explicitly depicted inFigure 1, the possibility of feedback loops should be recognized.That is, personal and situational characteristics are not static,and task performance could have dynamic effects on our pro-posed antecedents such as perceived past performance, job in-volvement, and supervisor supportiveness.

Reinterpretation of Past Research

The importance of increasing our understanding of the roleof goal commitment in the goal-setting process is highlightedby reinterpreting past research in light of the model shown inFigure 1. The lack of effects of goal difficulty, the presence ofconditional effects of goal difficulty, and inconsistent results us-ing similar key variables across studies may be, in many cases,attributable to variation in goal commitment. Note that thestudies discussed ahead provide only indirect evidence for themodel and are hardly a substitute for more direct empirical ex-aminations of the linkages suggested. Their discussion willhopefully convey that the preponderance of indirect evidenceon this issue warrants direct examination by future research.

Studies Failing to Establish Effects of Goal Difficulty

Several studies that found insignificant or negligible effectsmay be explained by subjects' lack of goal commitment. Forexample, in a study by Organ (1977) no group performanceaverage reached the level of the moderate goal. Because subjectshad prior task experience, they could have easily perceived theappreciably harder "difficult" goal as unrealistic and hence mayhave failed to become commited, because of low expectations.

Indeed, this would explain the inverse relation between goaldifficulty and commitment found in this study.

Motowidlo et al. (1978) found that performance was highestfor the low-goal condition (where expectancy of goal attainmentwas high) rather than in the high-goal condition (where expecta-tions of goal attainment were low). In this study, however, sub-jects did not make their expectancy ratings conditional on try-ing their best Because of this, the low expectancy reported forthe difficult goals may simply reflect a lack of commitment tothe originally established goal.

Ivancevich (1976) and Latham and Yukl (1975) found no sig-nificant effects of goal difficulty in field samples. In both of thesecases, however, a lack of organizational support was offered asa possible explanation for these lack of results. As is shown inFigure I, however, the effects of low organizational support werepossibly mediated by a resultant decrease in goal commitment.

Finally, Oldham (1975) failed to find a significant effect ofgoal difficulty in a study where performance on a time-sheetcompletion task was the dependent variable. A substantialnumber of subjects did not, however, accept the assigned goalsestablished in this study. The results from other studies thatfailed to replicate the effect of goal difficulty could possibly beattributed to a lack of goal commitment, but because no assess-ment of goal commitment was ever attempted, this is impossi-ble to ascertain (e.g., Bavelas & Lee, 1978; Forward & Zander,1971; Hall & Foster, 1977;Steers, 1975).

Studies Establishing Conditional Effects of Goal

Difficulty

According to Locke et al. (1981), relative to laboratory stud-ies, "the majority of the correlational [i.e., of the field] studiesfound only a conditional positive relation between goal diffi-culty and performance" (p. 129). It is instructive to look at thesestudies in light of the model presented here, because many ofthe variables on which the effect of goal difficulty was contin-gent are described here as antecedents of goal commitment.Therefore, whereas the situation appears to be complex or cha-otic (i.e., a large number of moderating influences), the situa-tion may be much simpler (i.e.. one major moderating influ-ence—goal commitment—that is influenced by a large numberof other variables).

For example, Carroll and Tosi (1970) found an effect of goaldifficulty only for self-assured managers. Such a result would bepredicted from the model in Figure 1, inasmuch as self-esteemis positively related to goal commitment and goal commitmentmoderates the goal-difficulty-performance relation. In studies,both Ivancevich and McMahon (1977) and Steers (1975) foundeffects of goal difficulty only for subjects with strong higher or-der need strength. Because there is substantial overlap betweenneed for achievement and higher order need strength, it is prob-ably the case that individuals with higher order need strengthsimply exhibit greater goal commitment.

Goal commitment, according to the model developed here, isalso higher when there are no situational constraints on perfor-mance and there is high supervisory support It should not besurprising, therefore, that for a sample of elementary schoolchildren, an effect of goal difficulty was found only in schoolsoffering high support (Hall & Hall, 1976). Finally, Dachler and

218 JOHN R. HOLLENBECK AND HOWARD J. KLEIN

Mobley (1973) found an effect of goal difficulty only for kmg-

tenured employees. There is a substantial amount of literaturethat suggests that tenure is associated with both job involve-ment (Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977) and organizational commit-ment (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979) and, therefore, it is againapparent that the effects of goal commitment can at least par-tially explain an unexpected moderating effect.

Studies Yielding Inconsistent Results With KeyVariables

Results of studies that have examined monetary incentives,participation, and individual differences show considerable un-certainty with respect to the roles these variables play in thegoal-setting process. Locke et al. (1968) found that monetaryincentives lead to setting goals of increased difficulty. This find-ing was not replicated by Chung and Vickery (1976); Lathamet al. (1978); London and Oldham (1976); Pritchard and Curts(1973); Terborg (1976); or Terborg and Miller (1978). Thus, onecannot conclude that monetary incentives lead to increasedgoal difficulty. Saari and Latham (1980) found that monetaryincentives increased the frequency with which individuals setdifficult goals on their own. Terborg (1976) and Terborg andMiller (1978) failed to replicate this finding, however, so it can-not be concluded that money leads to goal setting in situations

wherein there would normally be no goals.More plausibly, as suggested originally by Locke (1968) and

in the model presented here, monetary incentives (or the rewardstructure in general) tend to increase goal commitment. Incon-sistent results emerge because whereas goal commitment is anecessary condition for the goal difficulty effect, monetary in-centives are not a necessary condition for goal commitment.That is, a situation may not contain monetary incentives yetstill generate goal commitment through other means, such aspublicness or social influence. When it is recognized that thekey variable is goal commitment, it becomes apparent that onecannot make any simple prediction about the effects of mone-

tary incentives. Rather, some assessment must be made of therelative contribution that monetary incentives make to goalcommitment, over and above what is already available fromother variables.

Even more inconsistent results have been obtained regardingparticipation. In some cases, participation resulted in highergoals (Latham et al., 1978; Latham &Yukl, 1975). In the latterstudy, participation interacted with individual differences to de-termine performance; that is, participatively set goals lead tohigher performance only for educated workers (Latham & Yukl,197S). A number of studies holding goal difficulty constantfound no differences in commitment between participativelyset versus assigned goals (Dossett et al., 1979; Latham & Mitch-ell, 1972; Latham & Saari, 1979a; Latham & Yukl, 1976). Inother studies, participation seemed to play no significant rolein the goal-setting process (Carroll & Tosi, 1970; Ivancevich,1976).

The expectancy theory model of goal commitment providedhere may be able to add some clarity to the situation. As dis-cussed earlier, participation in the goal-setting process may in-crease volition, which in turn, may increase goal commitment.Clearly, self-set goals imply volition, whereas assigned goals do

not. Participative goal setting lies somewhere between these ex-tremes, and without observing the actual joint goal-setting ses-sion, it is difficult to ascertain how much input subordinateshad in establishing these participative goals. When the subordi-nate sees his or her input to be low, goal commitment will below; when this input is perceived to be high, goal commitmentwill be higher (Erez et al., 198S). Again, it has to be noted thatalthough increasing subordinate perceptions of input into thegoal-setting process may be sufficient to bring about goal com-mitment, it is not a necessary condition for goal commitment.

According to Locke et al. (1981) "the only consistent thingabout the studies of individual differences in goal setting is theirinconsistency" (p. 156). The model provided here may proveinstrumental in understanding the underlying reasons for theseconfusing results. Individual differences, according to themodel, are personal factors that affect goal commitmentthrough attractiveness or expectancy of goal attainment. Anypersonal factor that affects attractiveness may interact with an-other variable (either personal or situational) that affects expec-tancy and vice versa. Also, any personal factor that affects theattractiveness of goal attainment, may be substituted for by asituational variable that also affects attractiveness. For example,Steers (1975) found that goals lead to performance only for sub-jects with high need for achievement (i.e., a personal factoraffecting attractiveness). Yet subjects with a low need forachievement performed well when they were allowed to partici-pate in goal setting. It would appear that in this case, need forachievement was enough to bring about commitment in somesubjects, but subjects low in this need required something else(in this case, volition) to bring about goal commitment. Similarexplanations could explain interactions among personality andother variables found in the goal-setting literature (e.g., Latham& Yukl, 1975).

Conclusion and Suggestions for Future Research

In summary, this article supports several conclusions aboutthe role goal commitment has played in the goal-setting litera-ture. First, despite the fact that the earliest discussions of goalsetting (Locke, 1968) specified commitment to goals as a neces-sary condition for goal setting to work, the majority of studiesin this area have completely ignored goal commitment (or ac-ceptance, or both). Furthermore, few investigators examinedthe effects of goal commitment in a fashion consistent with theconceptualization of commitment as a moderator. To date,there has not been a single study that has tested for the moderat-ing effects of goal commitment on the goal-difficulty-perfor-mance relation in a methodologically appropriate fashion (i.e.,that did not use single-item measures, measures of low reliabil-ity, range restriction, and inappropriate timing of measure-

ment). Studies that treated goal commitment as a dependentvariable, have at least provided suggestive evidence on the ante-cedents to commitment to difficult goals. Building on this pastresearch, one can develop a model of the goal commitment pro-cess that breaks down the antecedents of commitment, first bydetermining whether they affect the attractiveness or expec-tancy of goal attainment, and second by determining whetherthey are of a personal or situational nature. When this model isused to reinterpret past goal-setting research, it becomes appar-

GOAL COMMITMENT AND THE GOAL-SETTING PROCESS 219

enl that the widely varying goal difficulty effect sizes, condi-

tional goal difficulty effects, and inconsistent results with vari-

ables such as monetary incentives, participation, and individual

differences can largely be traced to main and interactive effects

of the variables specified by the model.

Future research in the area of goal setting obviously needs to

place greater emphasis on assessing goal commitment. Given

the central role of goal commitment in goal-setting theory, this

variable should always be measured, even when the goal com-

mitment by goal difficulty interaction is not being tested. If hy-

pothesized goal characteristics do not affect performance, a

likely explanation is that there was a low level of commitment

to the goal. Direct measurement of commitment would allow

this possibility to be tested and would reduce the plethora of

other post hoc explanations tangential to goal-setting theory. In

addition, future research, perhaps conceptually guided by the

expectancy theory model of goal commitment presented, needs

to uncover precisely what factors influence goal commitment.

The knowledge that one has to assign "difficult" goals, has little

value if one does not know how difficult these goals can be be-

fore job incumbents become uncommitted and hence abandon

those goals.

Future research incorporating these recommendations may

lead to a greater understanding of the role that goal commit-

ment plays in the goal-setting process. If it is found that goal

commitment is a necessary condition for goal setting to work,

then this increased understanding of the antecedents of goal

commitment will have critical implications for goal-setting ap-

plications, as well as goal-setting theory. Clearly this topic de-

serves more commitment from goal-setting researchers than

has been evident in the past.

References

Atkinson, J. W,, & Feather, N. T. (1966). A theory of achievement moti-

vation. New York: Wiley.Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Bavelas, 5., & Lee, E. S. (1978). Effects of goal level on performance: A

trade off of quantity and quality. Canadian Journal ofPsychology, 32,

219-240.

Campbell, D. J. (1982). Determinants of choice of goal difficulty level:

A review of situational and personality influences. Journal of Occupa-

tional Psychology, 55,79-95.Campion, M. A., & Lord, R. G. (1982). A control systems conceptual-

ization of the goal setting and changing process. Organizational Be-

havior and Human Performance, 30,265-287.

Carroll, S. 1., & Tosi. H. L. (1970). Goal characteristics and personality

factors in a management-by-objectives program. Administrative Sci-

ence Quarterly, IS, 295-305.

Chung, JC. H., & Vickery, W. D. (1976). Relative effectiveness and joint

effects of three selected reinforcements in a repetitive task situation.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16,114-142.

Dachler, H. P., & Mobtey, W. H. (1973). Construct validity of an instru-

mentality-expectancy-task-goal model of work motivation. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 58,397-418.Dossett, D. L., Latham, G. P., & Mitchell, T. R. (1979). Effects of as-

signed versus participalively set goals, knowledge of results, and indi-

vidual differences on employee behavior when goal difficulty is held

constant. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64,291-298.

Dossett, D. L., Latham, G. P., & Saari, L. M. (1980). The impact of

goal setting on survey returns. Academy of Management Journal, 23,

561-567.

Dweck, C S., & Gilhard. D. (1975). Expectancy statements as determi-

nants of reactions to failure: Sex differences in persistence and expec-

tancy change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32,

1077-1084.

Barley, P. C (1985). Influence of information, choice, and task com-

plexity on goal acceptance, performance, and personal goals. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 70,481-491.

Barley, P. C., & Kanfer, R. (1985). The influence of component partici-

pation and role models on goal acceptance, goal satisfaction and per-

formance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

36,378-390.

Ekehammar, B. (1974). Inlcractionism in personality from a historical

perspective. Psychological Bulletin, SI, 1026-1048.

Endler, N. S., & Magnusson, D. (1976). Interactional psychology and

personality. New York: Hemisphere.

Erez, M,, Early, P. C., & Hulin, C. L. (1985). The impact of participa-

tion on goal acceptance and performance: A two-step model. Acad-

emy of Management Journal, 2S, 50-66.

Ercz, M., &. Zidon, I. (1984). Effect of goal acceptance on the relation

of goal difficulty to performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69-

78.

Festinger, L. (1942). Wish, expectation, and group standards as factors

influencing level of aspiration. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-

chology, 37, 184-200.

Forward, J., & Zander, A. (1971). Choice of unattainable group goals

and effects on performance. Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, 6,184-199.

Frank, J. (1941). Recent studies of toe level of aspiration. Psychological

Bulletin, 38,218-226.

French, J. R., Kay, E., & Meyer, H. H. (1966). Participation and the

appraisal system. Human Relations, 19,3-19,

Friedman, M., & Rosenman, R. (1974). Type A behavior and your

heart. New \ork: Knopf.

Frost, P. J., & Mahoney, T. A. (1976). Goal setting and the task process:

An interactive influence on individual performance. Organizational

Behavior and Human Performance, 17,328-350.

Hall, D. T. (1971). A theoretical model of career subidentity develop-

ment in organizational settings. Organizational Behavior and Hu-

man Performance, 6,52-76.

Hall, D. T, & Fbstei; L. W. (1977). A psychological success cycle and

goal setting: Goals, performance, and attitudes. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal, 20, 282-290.

Hall, D. T, & Hall, F. S. (1976). The relationship between goals, perfor-

mance, success, self-image, and involvement under different organi-zational climates. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9, 267-278.

Hollenbeck, J. R., & Brief, A. P. (in press). The effects of individual

differences and goal origin on the goal setting process. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

Hgen, D. R., Fishes C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of

individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 64,349-371.

Ivancevich, J. M. (1976). Effects of goal setting on performance and job

satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61,605-412.

Ivancevich, J. M., & McMahon, J. T. (1977). Black-white differences

in a goal setting program. Organizational Behavior and Human Per-

formance, 20, 287-300.

Jackson, D. N. (1974). Personality Research Form manual. Port Huron,

MI: Research Psychologist Press.

Kalb, D. A., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1970). Goal setting and self-directed

behavior change. Human Relations, 23,439-457.

Latham, G. P., & Marshall, H. A. (1982). The effects of self-set, partici-

220 JOHN R. HOLLENBECK AND HOWARD J. KLEIN

patively set, and assigned goals on the performance of government

employees. Personnel Psychology, 35,399-404,

Latham, G. P., Mitchell, T, R., & Dossett, 0. L. (1978). Importance of

participative goal setting and anticipated rewards on goal difficulty

and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6 3,! 6 3-171.

Latham, G. P., & Saari, L. M. (1979a). The effects of holding goaldifficulty constant on assigned and participatively set goals. Academy

of Management Journal, 22,163-168.

Latham, G. P., & Saari, L. M. (1979b). Importance of supportive rela-

tionships in goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69,151 -156.

Latham, G. P., & Sleek, T. P. < 1983). The motivational effects of partici-

pation vs goal setting on performance. Academy of Management

Journal, 26.406-417.

Latham, G. P., Steele, T. P., & Saari, L. M. (1982). The eflfects of partici-

pation and goal difficulty on performance. Personnel Psychology, 35,

677-686.

Latham, G. P., & Yukl, G. A. (1975). Assigned versus participative goal

setting with educated and uneducated wood workers. Journal of Ap-

plied Psychology, 60,299-302.

Latham, G. P., & Yukl, G. A. (1976). Effects of assigned and participa-

tive goal setting on performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Ap-

plied Psychology, 61, 166-171.

Lewin, K., Dembo, T., Festinger, L.,& Sears, P. (1944). Level of aspira-

tion. In I. McV. Hunt (Ed.), Personality and the behavior disorders

(W1, pp. 33-38). New York: Ronald.

Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives.

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

Locke, E. A. (1982). Relation of goal level to performance with a short

work period and multiple goal levels. Journal of Applied Psychology,67,512-514.

Locke, E. A., & Bryan, S. F, (1967). Performance goals as determinantsof level of performance and boredom. Journal of Applied Psychology,

51,120-130.

Locke, E. A., Bryan, J. E, & Kendall, L. M. (1968). Goals and intentionsas mediator of the effects of monetary incentives on behavior. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 52,104-121.

Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C, & Bobko, P. (1984). Effects of self-

efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task performance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 69,241-251.

Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. R, Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal

setting and task performance: 1968-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90,125-152.

London, M., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Effects of varying goal types

and incentive systems on performance and satisfaction. Academy of

Management Journal, 19,537-546.

Matsui, X, Okada, A., & Kakuyama, T. (1982). InBuence of achieve-

ment need on goal setting, performance, and feedback effectiveness.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 67,645-648.

McClelland, D. C. (196IX The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: VanNostrand.

Mento, A. J., Cartledge, N, D., & Locke, E A. (1980). Maryland vs.Michigan vs. Minnesota: Another look at the relationship of expec-

tancy and goal difficulty to task performance. Organizational Behav-

ior and Human Performance, 25,419-440.

Motowidlo, S. J., Loehr, V., & Dunnette, M. D. (1978). A laboratory

study of the effects of goal specificity on the relationship between

probability of success and performance. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 63,172-179.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement

of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14,224-247.

Oldham, G. R. (1975). The impact of supervisory characteristics on

goal acceptance. Academy of Management Journal, 18,461-475.

Organ, D. W. (1977). Intentional vs arousal efiects of goal setting. Or-

ganizational Behavior and Human Performance, IS, 378-389.Pallak, M. S., & Cummings, W. (1976). Commitment and voluntary

energy conservation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2,27-30.

Peters, L. H., & O'Connor, E. i. (1980). Situational constraints and

work outcomes: The influences of a frequently overlooked constructAcademy of Management Review, 5,391-397.

Pritchard, R. D., & Curts, M. I. (1973). The influence of goal setting

and financial incentives on task performance. Organizational Behav-

ior and Human Performance, 10,175-183.

Rabmowitz, S., & Hall, D. T. (1977). Organizational research on job

involvement. Psychological Bulletin, $4,265-288.

Rakestraw, T. L., & Weiss, H. M. (1981). The interaction of social in-

fluences and task experiences on goals, performance, and perfor-

mance satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-mance, 27, 326-344.

Saari, L. N., & Latham, G. P. (1980). Hypotheses on reinforcing proper-

ties of incentives contingent upon performance. Unpublished manu-

script, University of Washington.

Salancik, G. (1977). Commitment and the control of organizational be-

havior and belief. 1 n B. M. Staw & G. R. Salancifc (Eds.), New direc-

tions in organizational behavior (pp. 1-54). Chicago: St. Clave Press.

Searfoss, D. G., & Monczka, R. M. (1973). Perceived participation in

the budget process and motivation to achieve the budget. Academy of

Management Journal, 16,541-554.

Steers, R. M. (1975). Task-goal attributes, achievement, and supervi-

sory performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-

mance. 13,292-303.

Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1974). The rote of task-goal attributes

in employee performance. Psychological Bulletin, 81,434-452.

Taylor, M. S., Locke, E. A., Lee, C, ftGist, M. E. (1984). Type Abehav-

ior and faculty research productivity: What are the mechanisms? Or-

ganizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34,402-418.

Terborg. J. R. (1976). The motivational components of goal setting.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 61,613-621.

Terborg, J. R., & Miller, H. E. (1978). Motivation, behavior, and perfor-

mance: A closer examination of goal setting and monetary incentives.Journal of Applied Psychology. 63,29-39.

Tharenou, P., & Marker, P. (1982). Organizational correlates of em-

ployee self-esteem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 797-805.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Wo* and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Yukl, G. A., & Latham, G. P. (1978). Interrelationships among em-

ployee participation, individual differences, goal difficulty, goal ac-

ceptance, goal instrumentality, and performance. Personnel Psychol-

ogy, 31.305-323.

Received April 25,1986Revision received September 17,1986

Accepted December i, 1986 •