Solution
Robert answered on
Dec 25 2021
1
Student Name:
Prepared for:
April 29, 2014
2
Planning
Planning Issue: Lack of Employee Involvement or Participation in Goal Setting and
Decision Making
Planning is first and most crucial management function as all other functions, such as
organizing, controlling, and leading depends on effective planning. However, some planning
issues effect overall organizational performance. One of the major issues is lack of employee
involvement in goal setting. Lathharm and Yukl (1975) argue that employees are more
committed toward the goals if the top level management involves them in setting goals as well as
in the development of the specific criteria to attain those goals. According to Lathharm and Yukl
(1975) the result of an experiment provide an overview that employees’ participation in the goals
setting resulted in high level of performance of employees that also caused organization overall
performance’s improvement.
The study was conducted with 92 low level managers, who had to participate in goals
setting with their boss. In another study on employee involvement or participation in goals
setting by Lathharm and Yukl (1975), they have identified that the goal setting with employees’
involvement enabled employees to attain them easily. On the other hand, the goals provided to
employees without their perceived level of goal attainment caused poor individual and
organizational performance. The study indicated that the employees, who participated in goal
setting with their boss their level of goals’ difficulty was low because the goals were set,
according to their level of attainment. Whereas, the employees who did not participate in goals
setting, they perceived goals difficult because in planning phase, goals were set without their
considerations (Lathharm & Yukl, 1975).
Erez, Earley, and Hulin (1985) state that goals’ setting have a direct relationship with the
employees’ commitment toward organizational goals. They argue that goals are the regulators of
human behavior as human perceives through goal setting that what he has to accomplish.
According to Erez, Earley, and Hulin (1985) lack of employees’ participation in goals setting
esulted in low level of acceptance as well as poor performance of employees and overall
organization. The goal acceptance is the major issue that indicates that whether goals affect
performance or not in an organization. The lack of participation also refers to lack of
participation in decision making and lack of participation in decision making influences the
productivity due to low level of goals acceptance (Erez, Earley, & Hulin, 1985).
The lack of participation in decision making (PDM) in relation to goal setting influences
goal acceptance that at the end affect organizational performance. The overall organizational
performance is influenced due to low level of goals acceptance because employees feel lack of
control in goal setting process (Erez, Earley, & Hulin, 1985). Erez, Earley, and Hulin (1985)
have investigated the relationship between goals acceptance and employees’ participation and
employees’ participation and performance. The results of the study have shown that lack of goals
acceptance is associated to employees’ participation and employees’ participation is linked to
performance. Lack of employees’ participation in goals setting or participation in decision
making (PDM) reduced employees’ level of goals’ acceptance. On the other side, lack of
employees’ participation in goals setting lowered employees’ performance in achieving
organizational goals (Erez, Earley, & Hulin, 1985).
3
Janssen and Yperen (2004) provide an overview that employees’ goals orientations
influence their performance and level of satisfaction that ultimately affect overall organizational
performance. They argued that goal orientations enable employees to not only perceive, but also
to interpret as well as to respond to the situations needed to achieve end gals. According to
Janssen and Yperen (2004) if employees did not receive same level of goals orientations that
they perceive in relation to the future situations, their performance is lowered and they feel
demotivated. The leader-member exchange theory identifies that quality of exchanges in order to
achieve perceived goals are also the predictors of overall organizational and individual
performance. Low quality exchanges between employees and top level management in relation
to goal setting or goal orientations influence employees’ ability to achieve end goals (Janssen &
Yperen, 2004).
According to Janssen and Yperen (2004) a lower level of quality of leader-member
exchange is directly linked to unclear roles that ultimately effect individuals’ job performance
and satisfaction and overall organizational performance. It is due to the fact that in an
organizational setting, top level management is like an agent of employees, who set goals and
predict job product for employees. The lack of involvement of employees in decision making
and lack of social exchanges between supervisors and employees decreases the ability of
employees to achieve organizational goals. Janssen and Yperen (2004) argue that lack of leader-
member exchanges and goal orientations is the major cause of poor organizational and individual
performance because employees’ do not feel comfortable with the goals set by leaders without
their thoughts’ exchanges and also don’t enjoy their tasks. Employees and leaders exchanges on
goals orientations ensure actual performance and task management (Janssen & Yperen, 2004).
Miller and Monge (1986) describes that participation influences both satisfaction and
productivity because satisfaction and productivity both are effected by participation. Miller and
Monge (1986) have use three models to provide an insight about the importance of participation.
In relation to cognitive model according to Miller and Monge (1986) employees have more
knowledge about their working capacities and capabilities than management. And if they will
participate in decision making, they can more effectively achieve the organizational goals as well
as decisions can be made with large pool of information. On the other hand, no involvement of
employees in decision making or planning, decisions will be made with less pool of information
and employees’ will not be able to implement work procedures effectively (Miller &
Monge,1986).
Miller and Monge (1986) specify that participation of employees lead to greater
attainment that increases level of satisfaction in employees. They argue that there is a link
etween participation and productivity as lack of participation in decision making and goal
setting during planning affect employees’ strengths, intelligence, competency and value patterns.
They are not able to fully utilize their strengths, intelligence, and competency as well as value
patterns that reduce their productivity level and effect overall performance of the organization
(Miller & Monge, 1986). According to Miller and Monge (1986) contingency model also
provide an insight about the fact that lack of employees participation in decision making reduces
individual productivity and overall organizational productivity. The employees due to lack of
participation feel dependent and controlled that is decisions are forcefully imposed on them.
Consequently, the productivity of employees’ suffers (Miller & Monge, 1986). Miller and
Monge (1986) also argue that cognitive model of participation proposes that lack of participation
4
negatively affected decisions that are made opposite to theory capability or expertise to achieve
certain goals.
Locke, Lathharm, and Erez (1988) argue that goals difficulty has a direct relationship
with the employees’ performance. It is due to the fact that if goals are not set according to the
capability of employees, it affects employees’ performance. Locke, Lathharm, and Erez (1988)
have conducted a study and its result have provided an insight that employees’ commitment
dropped when level of goal’s difficulty increases in relation to their capacity level that ultimately
lowered performance of employees and organizations. According to Locke, Lathharm, and Erez
(1988) lack of commitment with respect to goals and low productivity and performance is related
to lack of participation of employees in goal setting. They specify that commitment model
depends on the external influences like authority, interactive influences like participation and
internal factors like expectancy.
Locke, Lathharm, and Erez (1988) have conducted an experiment in which employees
were asked to assign goals themselves, according to their ability and some goals were set for
them by management. The goals set by employees have shown greater commitment and high
level of performance. According to Locke, Lathharm, and Erez (1988) the goals set by the
management in the time of planning with employees’ participation lead to high overall
organizational performance. On the other hand, lack of employee participation in goal setting not
only reduces the performance, but also level of commitment toward the achievement of
organizational objectives. Locke, Lathharm, and Erez (1988) argue that lack of participation in
goals setting also effect employees’ expectancy toward their goals that effect performance of
employees’ and overall organizational performance. Employees’ perceptions toward goal setting
can be different from management’s perspectives that limit the chances of good performance of
employees that ultimately lower the commitment toward organizational goals (Locke, Lathharm,
& Erez, 1988).
Locke, Frederick, Lee and Bobko (1984) specify that effect of goal setting is huge on the
performance of an organization and individuals. According to Locke, Fredrick, Lee, and Bobko
(1984) there is a direct relationship of goals and knowledge progress and knowledge progress
and goals leads to high performance. The combination of goals and knowledge progress is the
est combination of high performance (Locke, Frederick, Lee & Bobko, 1984). In addition
according to Locke, Frederick, Lee and Bobko (1984) participation in goals co
elates to
performance. Self-efficacy is the main factor due to which employees’ participation is necessary
as goals setting in relation to employees’ abilities empower employees and they feel more
committed toward organizational goals (Locke, Frederick, Lee & Bobko 1984).
Locke, Frederick, Lee and Bobko (1984) describe that goal difficulty in proportion to
employees’ level of attainment influence adversely impact productivity that ultimately affect
overall performance of organizations. A study was conducted by Locke, Frederick, Lee and
Bobko (1984) and according to its results self-efficacy and goals choice have positive
elationship that indicated that lack of involvement of employees in goals’ choices with respect
to their level of ability causes low performance. The inability of employees’ to implement
procedures and techniques to lack of participation in relation to goal achievement put negative
influence on productivity and employees’ were not able to achieve organizational goals (Locke,
Frederick, Lee & Bobko, 1984).
5
Recommendation
Participative Goal Setting and Involvement of Employees in Decision making
Latham and Steele (1983) argue that participation in goal setting increases the
productivity of employees as well as overall organizational performance. According to Latham
and Steele (1983) performance is directly proportional to employees’ level of participation in
decision making. The goal setting theory state that employees’ motivation is affected by
participation in decision making in relation to goals (Latham & Steele, 1983). Latham and Steele
(1983) conducted a study at General Electric and its results have shown that managers, who
involve employees in setting goals and in decision making those employees’ performance was
high.
The study also provided an overview that the specific goals assigned to employees with
participation had an inverse relationship with goal difficulty and positive relationship with the
performance. The employees felt committed and motivational toward goals achievement that
increased their productivity and also improved overall organizational performance (Latham &
Steele, 1983). Latham and Steele (1983) in relation to study conclude that authoritative
management style that leads to lack of employee involvement in goal setting and participation in
decision making decreases the chances of employee understandings of goals. On the other hand,
participative goals setting lead to participative decision making (PDM) and increase employees’
productivity that ultimately improve overall organizational performance (Latham & Steele,
1983).
Lam, Chen, and Schau
oeck (2002) identifies that participative decision making
influence level of sharing between tope management and their subordinates. They state that there
employee participation put positive impact on employees’ goal achievement, job satisfaction and
productivity. According to Lam, Chen, and Schau
oeck (2002) participation in relation to
shared mental models help management and employees to shared experience. This enables
management to set goals, according to employees’ ability that increased employees’ goals related
discretion and productivity. Lam, Chen, and Schau
oeck (2002) also describe that Participative
decision making in relation to goal setting effectively target employees’ values and cognitive
ehaviors that increases the performance.
According to Nemeroff and Cosentino (1979) feedback or participation from employees
can help management to set goals more effectively. It is due to the fact that employee
involvement in goals setting links goal setting in planning phase to employees’ internal goal
setting process (Nemeroff & Cosentino, 1979). Nemeroff and Cosentino (1979) also argue that
employees’ feedback to goal setting enable management to emphasize those behaviors that suits
employees and set the goals, according to their perceived level. By taking into consideration
employees’ feedback in setting goals, managers’ skills of goal setting according to employees’
self-efficacy is increased. Consequently, employees’ performance increase as well as level of
satisfaction and overall organizational performance (Nemeroff & Cosentino, 1979).
6
References:
Erez, M., Earley, P. C., & Hulin, C. L. (1985). The impact of participation on goal acceptance
and performance: A two-step model. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 50-66.
Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees' goal orientations, the quality of leader-
member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of
management journal, 47(3), 368-384.
Lam, S. S., Chen, X. P., & Schau
oeck, J. (2002). Participative decision making and employee
performance in different cultures: The moderating effects of allocentrism/idiocentrism
and efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 905-914.
Latham, G. P., & Steele, T. P. (1983). The motivational effects of participation versus goal
setting on performance. Academy of Management Journal, 26(3), 406-417.
Latham, G. P., & Yukl, G. A. (1975). A review of research on the application of goal setting in
organizations. Academy of management journal, 18(4), 824-845.
Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task
strategies on task performance. Journal of applied psychology, 69(2), 241.
Locke, E. A., Latham, G. P., & Erez, M. (1988). The determinants of goal commitment.
Academy of management review, 13(1), 23-39.
Ludwig, T. D., & Geller, E. S. (1997). Assigned versus participative goal setting and response
generalization: Managing injury control among professional pizza deliverers. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82(2), 253.
Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1986). Participation, satisfaction, and productivity: A meta-
analytic review. Academy of management Journal, 29(4), 727-753.
Nemeroff, W. F., & Cosentino, J. (1979). Utilizing feedback and goal setting to increase
performance appraisal interviewer skills of managers. Academy of Management Journal,
22(3), 566-576.
7
Organizing
Managers face various challenges in organization when organizing work, employees and
esources. For example, resistant to organizational change and diversity are the major challenges
that managers have to face.
Resistant to Organizational Change and Diversity Challenges
Piderit (2000) argues that in order to respond to changing pace, the organizations are
adopting new strategies, structures like flatter and agile, and also implementing new cultures.
These changes adaptation depends on the employees’ support and enthusiasm, but employees
esist changing. According to Piderit (2000) employees’ resistance to change is associated to
three dimensions of attitudes, such as cognitive, emotional and intentional. This concept is also
known as tripartite view of attitudes. The organization are continuously involve in swift
environmental as well as technological organizational changes and in order to realize these
changes, mangers have to rely on employees’ cooperation. It is due to the fact that resistant to
change damage change process and its negative outcomes include low level of satisfaction,
productivity, and high level of turnover (Van Dam, Oreg, & Schyns, 2008). According to Van
Dam, Oreg, and Schyns (2008) one of the reason of employees resistant to change is that their
eaction are not taken into account. In addition, in respect of three dimensions of attitudes,
employees develop negative attitudes regarding change due to negative interpretation of changes
for them. Van Dam, Oreg, and Schyns (2008) also identifies that individuals react to change with
espect to the extent of specific change that also depends on the particular characteristics of
change. Resistant to change is also linked to the way how employees in organizations respond to
change. For example, some people resist changing because they don’t like alternations in
working environment around them and some employees resist change because they are not sure
about their capabilities to perform in change environment (Van Dam, Oreg, Schyns & 2008).
According to Van Dam, Oreg, and Schyns (2008) people in organizations show their resistance
y anxiety and low level of involvement.
Avey, Wersing and Luthans (2008) describe that in the past, it is considered that visions
and leadership is the two most important factors in implementing change in organizations, but
today it is not the fact. Organizational change depends on the acceptance and engagement of
employees toward change (Avey, Wersing & Luthans, 2008). According to Avey, Wersing and
Luthans (2008) organizational change’s positivity and negativity depends on its effects on the
employees. For example, if an organization intends to implement change through downsizing to
increase organizations’ efficiency and it consider it positive. But for employees, it is not positive
ecause its effects on employees are disastrous (Avey, Wersing & Luthans 2008). Avey,
Wersing and Luthans (2008) state that with role of employees’ emotions, attitudes as well as
ehaviors an important factor is psychological capital that play an important role in change.
Positive psychological capital of employees in organizations...