APPLICATION OF GOAL SETTING THEORY

Year 2017, , 796 - 801, 30.06.2017

E. Serra Yurtkoru , Tulay Bozkurt Fatos Bekta Mahir Jibril Ahmed Vehap Kola

https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.660

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to test the goal theory
model originally developed by Locke and Latham in organizational setting in
Turkey, and explain its influence on job satisfaction and affective commitment.
Also mediating role of task specific strategy and moderating role of
selfefficacy are examined. Locke and Latham’s goal setting measure is adapted
to Turkish. Survey method is employed to collect data from 222 respondents from
automotive industry. Goal setting dimensions predicted affective commitment through
full mediation of job satisfaction. However task specific strategy did not have
significant mediation effect and self-efficacy did not moderate but explained
directly. Even though goal setting theory can be used in Turkish setting to
measure job satisfaction and affective commitment, factor structure is
different than the original and goal clarity is the only core goal variable.
Theoretically proposed moderators and mediators are found to have partial
effects or no effect at all. 

Keywords

Goal setting theory, affective commitment, job satisfaction, self-efficacy, goal achievement

References

• Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, vol. 63, p. 1–18.
• Bandura, A. (2011). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management. vol. 38, no.1, p. 9-44.
• Baron, R. M., Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 51, p. 1173–1182.
• Borgogni L. & Dello Russo S. (2012). A quantitative analysis of the High Performance Cycle in Italy. In E. A. Locke & G. P. Latham (Eds.), New Developments in Goal Setting and Task Performance (p. 270-283). New York: Routledge.
• Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, vol. 4, p. 62–83.
• Earley, P., & Perry, B. (1987). Work plan availability and performance: An assessment of task strategy priming on subsequent task completion. Organizational Behavior and Human Development Processes, vol. 39, p. 279-302.
• Kian, T., Yusoff, W., Rajah S. (2014). Job satisfaction and motivation: what are the difference among these two? European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, vol. 3, no. 2, p 94-102.
• Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2007). New developments in and directions for goal setting. European Psychologist, 12, 290–300.
• Lee, C., Bobko, P., Early, P.C., & Locke, E.A. (1991). An empirical analysis of a goal setting questionnaire. Journal of Organizational Behavior. vol. 12. p. 467-482.
• Locke, E. & Latham, G. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory, Association for Psychological Science, vol. 15, no. 5, p. 265-268.
• Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, vol. 57, no. 9, p. 705-717.
• Lunenburg F. (2011). Goal-setting theory of motivation, International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration vol. 15, p. 1-6.
• Seijts, G.H., & Latham, G.P. (2001). The effect of learning, outcome, and proximal goals on a moderately complex task. Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 22, p. 291–307.
• Stecher, D. & Rosse, J. (2007). Understanding reactions to workplace injustice through process theories of motivation, Journal of Management Education Vol. 31, p. 777-796.