Content area
Abstract
Background: Given the centrality of goal setting to managerial roles, it is surprising that limited attention has been paid to the impact of managers’ goal setting styles on subordinates’ goal reactions. This, in part, could be attributed to the absence of a coherent theoretical account of managers’ goal setting styles. A limited understanding and contradictory views surrounding subordinates’ goal reactions might also have restricted the number of studies on the interpersonal exchanges between managers and subordinates when setting goals. Considering the limited research, it is not surprising that predictive models of hierarchical goal setting are restricted to a few direct effects. Models that uncover the psychological processes underlying the serial formation of subordinates’ goal reactions to managers’ goal setting styles could, however, provide a more eloquent representation of hierarchical goal setting. Other interpersonal factors and individual characteristics, such as supervisor-focussed justice and the dimensions of the Five-factor Model of Personality (also referred to as the Big Five personality traits) could also have bearing on the ways in which subordinates make sense of managers’ goal setting styles, and might have implications for the ways in which subordinates react to goals.
Research objectives: In order to address the shortcomings with respect to managers’ goal setting behaviours, Objective 1 was to investigate whether eight styles could be differentiated and arranged around the circumference of a circle (also known as a circumplex model). The eight factors differentiated included the reasonable, deliberative, considerate, complaisant, distorted, hostile, disregardful, and directive styles. Objective 2 was to address the theoretical paucity regarding goal reactions by establishing the extent to which four higher-order factors (each consisting of a cognitive, affective, volitional, and behavioural intentional facet) could be differentiated and presented in a typology. Goal reactions were conceived to consist of goal commitment, compliance, withdrawal, and resistance. Based on the premise that more coherent and differentiated models of styles and reactions could be developed, Objective 3 of the study was to investigate the serial indirect effects of goal setting styles on goal reactions, thereby uncovering the cognitive motivational mechanisms underlying hierarchical goal setting. Supervisor-focussed justice was further included as a variable in the serial mediational models to address Objective 4, which was to investigate the fairness criteria that subordinates employ when making sense of managers’ goal setting styles. Finally, Objective 5 was to determine the moderating effects of personality traits on the relationship between goal setting styles and goal reactions, which provided boundary conditions under which relationships between goal setting styles and goal reactions are either more or less tenable.
Research design: A cross-sectional survey was conducted to enable an investigation of a large set of variables using an online platform or, where access to the Internet was not possible, a paper-and-pencil version. Respondents (n = 451) were working adults who were at least 18 years old, had at least a Grade-12 education and a self-reported satisfactory English reading ability, and reported to a manager in their work setting. Different organisations across different industry sectors of the South African economy were targeted with this research, to test if these models could be generalised across organisational and industry boundaries. Questionnaires using a five-point intensity or Likert scale were either newly developed or adopted from existing scales to measure goal setting styles, supervisor-focussed justice, goal reactions, and the Big Five personality traits. The psychometric properties of each of the scales in the questionnaire were first inspected by means of a scaleby-scale confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Thereafter, CFAs and multidimensional scaling (MDS) were conducted to determine the factor structure and arrangement of Goal setting styles and Goal reactions respectively. Thereafter, the indirect effects of Goal setting styles on Goal reactions (via Supervisor-focussed justice, the Cognitive, Affective, and Volitional facets of Goal reactions) were investigated by means of serial multiple mediator models in structural equation modelling (SEM). The interaction effect of Goal setting styles and Personality traits on Goal reactions was also inspected by conducting SEM.
Main findings:
Objective 1: CFA revealed that an eight-factor model fit the data on Goal setting styles well. However, high inter-factor correlations between some of the styles suggested that four broader goal setting orientations provided a more parsimonious representation of the data, namely the thoughtful approach, directive style, complaisant style, and thoughtless approach. Even though multicollinearity between some of the scales made it reasonable to expect that the data would not support a circular arrangement of the constructs, a two-dimensional representation of the data revealed that subordinates might employ two heuristics when making sense of managers’ goal setting styles, namely the degree to which managers are viewed as competent or warm. Incompetence and coldness would reflect the inverse of the respective constructs on a continuum. The more nuanced and cogent representation of goal setting styles provides a novel insight into the cognitive schema that subordinates employ when making sense of managers’ goal setting styles.
Objective 2: As theoretically expected, MDS and CFA revealed that the facets of Goal commitment and Compliance were clearly differentiated. The facets of Withdrawal and Resistance, however, were less differentiated than expected, which suggests that the reactions of subordinates might be of similar intensity. As a result, a three higher-order factor model consisting of Commitment, Compliance, and Opposition appeared to better represent the data on Goal reactions than a four higher-order factor model. The greater array and multi-faceted nature of goal reactions provide a more eloquent way to distinguish between different goal reactions, as well as subtle hints at the psychological complexity that underpin these reactions.
Objective 3: The evidence supported the hypothesised sequence in which subordinates form their behavioural intentions toward managers’ goal setting styles, namely through initial perceptions (cognition and affect) of and volition regarding goals set. The serial indirect effects, overall, revealed that goal setting styles could either (1) internally motivate subordinates to commit to goals set (thoughtful approach), (2) externally motivate subordinates to comply with goals set (directive style), (3) have non-motivational effects (complaisant style), or (4) internally motivate subordinates to oppose goals (thoughtless approach). The findings suggest that a continuum of cognitive motivation exists, and that certain styles are strategically more effective than other styles in eliciting desired psychological states from subordinates.
Objective 4: As theoretically expected, supervisor-focussed justice was an important variable in the series of mediators between managers’ styles and subordinates’ behavioural intentions toward goals. More specifically, the findings indicated that informational justice, instead of interpersonal justice, is more effective when managers attempt to cognitively motivate their subordinates. A more prudent understanding of hierarchical goal setting should, therefore, not negate interactional fairness as a variable that contributes towards cognitive motivation in the workplace.
Objective 5: Even though personality moderated some relationships between styles and reactions, it appeared that the direct effects of managers’ goal setting styles and personality traits were more meaningful. The direct link between goal setting styles and goal reactions was particularly salient, which shifted the focus away from individual differences toward interpersonal factors. Curiously, those moderating effects that were significant only occurred for the relationships between goal setting styles and bonding types of goal reactions, not for the relationships between goal setting styles and oppositional types of goal reactions. Subordinates might, consciously or unconsciously, attribute oppositional reactions to factors external to themselves, such as managers’ styles, rather than factors internal to themselves, such as their personality traits.
Summary: The study presents a theoretical model, based on evidence, which could help scholars, human resource specialists, and managers to determine the unique impact of different goal setting styles on goal reactions. In comparison to prior research, the theoretical model provides a more nuanced representation of both managers’ goal setting styles and subordinates’ goal reactions. The model also transcends the old stimulus‒response view of behaviour, by accounting for the series of psychological processes that underpin subordinates’ reactions to the goals set by managers. Scholars and practitioners interested in more complex theoretical explanations for hierarchical goal setting could also benefit from the insights gained on the mediational effect of supervisor-focussed justice. In this respect, it would appear that subordinates are more likely to exchange their psychological bonds with goals for styles that are also perceived as informationally fair. Finally, subordinates bring unique personality compositions to the workplace, which predispose them to being more receptive to some goal setting styles and increasing their inclinations to react to goals in particular ways.
