IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v161y2020icp228-241.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Goal-setting reloaded: The influence of minimal and maximal goal standards on task satisfaction and goal striving after performance feedback

Author

Listed:
  • Giessner, Steffen R.
  • Stam, Daan
  • Kerschreiter, Rudolf
  • Verboon, Danny
  • Salama, Ibrahim

Abstract

When striving to meet goals, individuals monitor their progress towards achieving them. The discrepancy between their current performance and their goal determines task (dis)satisfaction, and thus whether they will make greater effort. We propose and test a theoretical extension of goal-setting theory, namely that different types of goal standards (minimal or maximal) fundamentally change this monitoring process. Through four experiments we demonstrate that with maximal goals (“ideal” standards), individuals experience greater task satisfaction the nearer their current performance comes to the goal. In contrast, with minimal goals (“at least” standards), their satisfaction level remains low, regardless of how close their performance is to the goal. When goals are exceeded, the reverse applies: with maximal goals, satisfaction remains high regardless of the level of overperformance, while with minimal goals, satisfaction is determined by the level of overperformance. We also demonstrate that task satisfaction levels influence subsequent decisions on goal striving.

Suggested Citation

  • Giessner, Steffen R. & Stam, Daan & Kerschreiter, Rudolf & Verboon, Danny & Salama, Ibrahim, 2020. "Goal-setting reloaded: The influence of minimal and maximal goal standards on task satisfaction and goal striving after performance feedback," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 228-241.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:161:y:2020:i:c:p:228-241
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.08.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597820303745
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.08.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kluger, Avraham N. & Stephan, Elena & Ganzach, Yoav & Hershkovitz, Meirav, 2004. "The effect of regulatory focus on the shape of probability-weighting function: Evidence from a cross-modality matching method," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 20-39, September.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    3. Crowe, Ellen & Higgins, E. Tory, 1997. "Regulatory Focus and Strategic Inclinations: Promotion and Prevention in Decision-Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 117-132, February.
    4. Chen, Xiao & Latham, Gary P., 2014. "The effect of priming learning vs. performance goals on a complex task," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 88-97.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Daan Stam & Robert G. Lord & Daan van Knippenberg & Barbara Wisse, 2014. "An Image of Who We Might Become: Vision Communication, Possible Selves, and Vision Pursuit," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 1172-1194, August.
    7. Podsakoff, Philip M. & Farh, Jiing-Lih, 1989. "Effects of feedback sign and credibility on goal setting and task performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 45-67, August.
    8. Drach-Zahavy, Anat & Erez, Miriam, 2002. "Challenge versus threat effects on the goal-performance relationship," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 667-682, July.
    9. Giessner, Steffen R. & van Knippenberg, Daan, 2008. ""License to Fail": Goal definition, leader group prototypicality, and perceptions of leadership effectiveness after leader failure," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 14-35, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kanfer, Ruth & Chen, Gilad, 2016. "Motivation in organizational behavior: History, advances and prospects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 6-19.
    2. Luo, Yong (Eddie) & Wong, Veronica & Chou, Ting-Jui, 2016. "The role of product newness in activating consumer regulatory goals," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 600-611.
    3. Bischof, Severin Friedrich & Boettger, Tim M. & Rudolph, Thomas, 2020. "“Curated subscription commerce: A theoretical conceptualizationâ€," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    4. Botzen, W.J. Wouter & de Boer, Joop & Terpstra, Teun, 2013. "Framing of risk and preferences for annual and multi-year flood insurance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 357-375.
    5. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent, 2009. "Probability weighting and the ‘level’ and ‘spacing’ of outcomes: An experimental study over losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 45-63, August.
    6. Anton Kühberger & Christian Wiener, 2012. "Explaining Risk Attitude in Framing Tasks by Regulatory Focus: A Verbal Protocol Analysis and a Simulation Using Fuzzy Logic," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 9(4), pages 359-372, December.
    7. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    8. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    9. Jonathan Meng & Feng Fu, 2020. "Understanding Gambling Behavior and Risk Attitudes Using Cryptocurrency-based Casino Blockchain Data," Papers 2008.05653, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    10. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    11. Boone, Jan & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & van Ours, Jan C., 2009. "Experiments on unemployment benefit sanctions and job search behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 937-951, November.
    12. Castro, Luciano de & Galvao, Antonio F. & Kim, Jeong Yeol & Montes-Rojas, Gabriel & Olmo, Jose, 2022. "Experiments on portfolio selection: A comparison between quantile preferences and expected utility decision models," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    13. Jos'e Cl'audio do Nascimento, 2019. "Behavioral Biases and Nonadditive Dynamics in Risk Taking: An Experimental Investigation," Papers 1908.01709, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    14. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    15. Bin Zou, 2017. "Optimal Investment In Hedge Funds Under Loss Aversion," International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance (IJTAF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-32, May.
    16. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    17. Wiafe, Osei K. & Basu, Anup K. & Chen, En Te, 2020. "Portfolio choice after retirement: Should self-annuitisation strategies hold more equities?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 241-255.
    18. Nicholas Barberis, 2012. "A Model of Casino Gambling," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 35-51, January.
    19. Lovric, M. & Kaymak, U. & Spronk, J., 2008. "A Conceptual Model of Investor Behavior," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-030-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    20. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:161:y:2020:i:c:p:228-241. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.