{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

G if high mark in acct is more important than in ob u

Info iconThis preview shows pages 6–8. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
e.g. if high mark in ACCT is more important than in OB, u put more effort in accounting Increase persistence – effort spent on a task over time e.g. when ppl keep goals in mind, they will work hard even when facing obstacles Encourage development of strategies & action plans – once goals are set, one can develop plans for achieving these goals e.g. goal to become fit may include plans to join a gym, work our w/ frds, etc Effective Goals: need to be… SMART S pecific – one knows exactly what is to be achieved M easurable – goals proposed can be tracked & reviewed A ttainable – goals (even if difficult) are reasonable, achievable R esults-oriented – support vision of organization T ime-bound – goals to be achieved within a stated time - specific goals inc. performance, under certain conditions (but may not work in complex tasks b/c ppl become too goal-focused on complex tasks, not better solutions) - difficult goals, when accepted, result in higher performance than do easy goals (but not when employees view goals as impossible) - feedback leads to higher performance - goals are equally effective whether participatively set, assigned, or self-set (how goals are set is not related to performance; but employees more likely to accept goals if participatively set) - goal commitment and financial incentives affect whether goals are achieved ($$ can lower commitment to difficult goals, inspire ppl to refuse to help co-workers, neglect tasks not directly related to financially-rewarded goals, may affect quality) - Factors that influence G-P relationship: Goal commitment, Self-efficacy, Task characteristics, National culture * self-efficacy = one’ belief that he is capable of performing a task (if high → confidence, try harder to master challenges, respond to –ve
Background image of page 6

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
P ART 2: S TRIVING FOR P ERFORMANCE feedback w/ inc. effort & motivation) *simpler, well-learned, independent tasks → goals more successful *culture-bound theory (e.g. for Canada and US) RESPONSES TO THE REWARD SYSTEM also process theories: Equity Theory & Fair Process (how ppl respond to rewards) EQUITY THEORY = ppl compare their job inputs ( effort, experience, education, competence, etc) and outcomes ( salary levels, raises, recognition, work conditions ) w/ those of others; then respond to eliminate any inequities - if ratio equal, state of equity exists; fairness perceived → justice (vice versa) *treated EQUITABLY (good performers deserve higher pay, vice versa) =/= treated EQUALLY (same pay) Ratio of Output to Input Person 1’s Perception Person 1 < Person 2 Inequity, under-rewarded Person 1 = Person 2 Equity Person 1 > Person 2 Inequity, over-rewarded Compare with Whom? …4 referent comparisons: Self-inside (employee ’s experiences in a diff. position inside his current organization) Self-outside (employee ’s experiences in a situation/position outside his current organization) Other-inside (another person/group of ppl inside employee’s organization) Other-outside (another person/group outside employee’s organization)
Background image of page 7
Image of page 8
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}