Category Archives: *Applied Psychology: An International Review
Rushing Toward Goal Attainment
Topic: Goals
Publication: Applied Psychology: An International Review (JUN 2010)
Article: Velocity as a predictor of performance satisfaction, mental focus, and goal revision
Authors: J.D. Elicker, R.G. Lord, S.R. Ash, N.C. Kohari, B.J. Hruska, N.L McConnell and M.E. Medvedeff
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger
We all know how great it feels to reach our goals. But what about when we know we are approaching our goals quickly? Goal setting is a process that creates discrepancies between one’s current performance and some future performance ideal. One of the most obvious outcomes of goal attainment is satisfaction (Yes, I did it!), but in a recent study of college students’ academic goals over the course of a college semester, Elicker et al. (2010) found that the speed at which people believe they are reaching their goals, which is referred to as velocity, is also important in determining performance
satisfaction.
While Elicker et al. found that students who had better performance were more satisfied with their performance, the results showed that students who believed they were approaching their goals more quickly (higher velocity) were also more satisfied with their performance. Overall, performance satisfaction tended to be greatest for students who considered their academic goals to be highly important to them AND perceived that they were attaining their goals quickly (high velocity).
In addition to satisfaction, Elicker et al.’s results suggest that velocity leads to increased mental focus toward goal attainment, which likely increases learning and performance.
Another outcome of practical interest is that students who believed they were moving quickly toward goal attainment did not revise their goals as much as those who perceived that they were moving slowly toward achieving their goals. Interestingly, however, for those who perceived low velocity but felt that their goals were highly important to them, tended to set higher goals for themselves over time.
The authors speculate that this allows people to compensate for their lack of progress toward goal attainment. There is no doubt that the implications of these findings are limited in their applicability to the workplace. However, Elicker et al.’s findings point to often neglected piece of the goal setting puzzle: velocity. If you’re skeptical, think about the second question asked in this review in terms of your work, i.e., how applicable are these findings to you?
So what can we take from this article? If goal attainment is far away, satisfaction may not necessarily be. Get started on those neglected projects!
Elicker, J.D., Lord, R.G., Ash, S.R., Kohari, N.C., Hruska, B.J., McConnell, N.L., & Medvedeff, M.E. (2010). Velocity as a predictor of performance satisfaction, mental focus, and goal revision. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59(3),
495-514.
Culture Matters When it comes to Stressors and Strains
Topic: Culture, Self Efficacy, Work Environment
Publication: Applied Psychology: An International Review (JAN 2010)
Article: A cross-national examination of self-efficacy as a moderator of autonomy/job
strain relationships
Authors: M.M. Nauta, C. Liu, and C. Li
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger
In work settings, autonomy refers to the degree of control that employees have over their work. While research has generally shown that low levels of autonomy are stressful to employees (i.e., leads them to experience strain), this is not necessarily true for all employees. Indeed, employees who are confident in their ability to exercise control over their lives and work environments (i.e., high generalized self-efficacy) appear to be buffered from the negative effects of low autonomy. However, most of the research on this topic has been conducted in North America and it is unclear whether these findings are consistent across cultures. Recently, Nauta, Liu, and Li (2010) explored whether culture plays a role in determining how employees respond to low (vs. high) levels of autonomy and self-efficacy. The authors chose to compare American and Chinese employees because they typify individualistic and collectivistic cultures respectively.
That is, employees in the U.S. tend to be more individualistic and place a heavier focus on independence, while Chinese employees tend to be more collectivistic and place a heavier focus on the needs of the group to which they belong. Nauta, Liu, and Li collected data from a wide range of university employees working at a large university in the U.S. and three universities in China.
Much like U.S. employees, low levels of autonomy appear to make highly efficacious Chinese employees uncomfortable. In other words, for employees who feel confident that they can effectively exert control over their work environment, not being able to do so is stressful (regardless of culture).
However, Nauta et al. discovered an interesting difference in how American and Chinese employees, low in self-efficacy, react to autonomy. In other words, American employees who lack confidence in their ability to exert control over their work find low levels of autonomy stressful, while Chinese employees who lack such confidence find high levels of autonomy stressful.
These findings are particularly pertinent to organizations operating globally. If nothing else, Nauta et al.’s study is a reminder that management policies and job characteristics in one country or culture may not have the same effects in another country or for another culture.
Nauta, M.M., Liu, C., & Li, C. (2010). A cross-national examination of self-efficacy as a moderator of autonomy/job strain relationships. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59(1), 159-179.
How Positive Feedback Helps Prevent Negative Outcomes
Topic: Feedback
Publication: Applied Psychology: An International Review (APR09)
Article: Consequences of positive and negative feedback: The impact on emotions and extra-role behaviors
Authors: F. D. Belschak, D. N. Den Hartog
Reviewed By: Sarah Teague
Two recent studies conducted by Belschak and Den Hartog (2009) investigated the impact of positive and negative feedback on emotions and several important work outcomes. Not surprisingly, results suggest that positive feedback leads to more positive emotions, while negative feedback leads to more negative emotions. More importantly, they found that these negative emotions led to a decrease in both organizational commitment (feelings of attachment to one’s organization) and intent to perform organizational citizenship behaviors (voluntary actions that help the organization). They also led to an an increase in counterproductive work behaviors (behaviors that hurt the organization) and turnover
intentions.
Taken together, people who receive positive feedback are happier and consequently more committed and productive to their organizations. In cases when negative feedback must be given, the authors suggest framing the feedback in a positive way (e.g. think learning experiences instead of mistakes) and generally being supportive.
Illegitimate Tasks – You Want Me to do What!?
Topic: Counterproductive Work Behavior
Publication: Applied Psychology: An International Review (JAN 2010)
Article: Illegitimate tasks and counterproductive work behavior
Authors: N.K. Semmer, F. Tschan, L.L. Meier, S. Facchin, & N. Jacobshagen
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger
The research on counterproductive work behavior (CWB) suggests that it often represents a form of retaliation in response to unfairness. In other words, when employees perceive unfairness in the workplace, they get even by engaging in behaviors that damage the organization or its employees.
Extending this line of research, Semmer and colleagues (2010) uncovered an interesting predictor to CWB: illegitimate tasks. Illegitimate tasks are tasks that are assigned to employees that undermine their professional identities. That is, employees have jobs and professions that involve a set of “normal” or “typical” tasks. This also implies that some tasks and/or duties should not be expected of certain employees (e.g., assigning a medical doctor to repair an air conditioner). According to Semmer et al., the assignment of illegitimate tasks (either unreasonable or unnecessary tasks), can undermine employees’ professional (and perhaps social) identities and possibly lead to CWB. As expected, Semmer et al. found that when employees perceive that they are assigned illegitimate tasks at work they are more likely to engage in CWBs targeted toward organizational members or the organization itself.
Clearly, managers should be careful when delegating tasks to certain employees. If employees view these work assignments as unreasonable or unnecessary given their profession, then they will be more likely to engage in CWBs.
Finally, since many supervisors are focused on the big picture (i.e., the overall goals of the organizational unit) they may simply be unaware that this phenomenon takes place. Clearly then, it is important to communicate to managers that employees do appraise tasks as being legitimate/illegitimate which can potentially lead to counter productive behaviors. Nevertheless, some tasks MUST be completed. Semmer et al. suggest that if supervisors demonstrate their willingness to complete such tasks, then their employees may be less likely to view them as illegitimate.
Semmer, N.K., Tschan, F., Meier, L.L, Facchin, S, & Jacobshagen, N. (2010). Illegitimate tasks and counterproductive work behavior. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59(1), 70-96.
