Achieving the goal
Gerard Seijts finds that it’s sometimes better to
focus on the learning process than on the outcome Ivey professor Gerard Seijts likes to set challenging personal goals. This is one reason why he is excited by his research into the effects of individual and group goal setting. Existing research shows that people perform better when assigned specific, challenging goals. But Seijts has found that if a goal is too challenging, it can actually have a negative impact. Specifically, with simple tasks, challenging goals have a positive effect on performance. But with complex or novel tasks, he finds it is better to set learning goals than outcome goals. “A learning goal focuses on a process - like discovering and implementing three strategies that will help you successfully complete the task,” he says. “The research suggests that, on complex tasks, it is better to move your attention away from the outcome and instead focus on the process.” Seijts’ research also looks at goal setting in a group or team setting. As with individuals, group goals can enhance performance. But what happens when there is a conflict between an individual’s goals and that of the group? “Goal setting theory makes very nice predictions about individual goals and group goals,” says Seijts, “but rarely have they been studied in combination.” In his experimental study, Seijts involved people in a goal conflict situation through an investment simulation, and then watched how they responded. “So long as a person’s self-set individual goal for making money was compatible with the overall group goal that was assigned, group performance was enhanced,” he says. “But when individual goals were incompatible with the group goal, then the group as a whole suffered.” This study underlines the importance of goal alignment between personal goals and group or organizational goals. To achieve this, there must be an individual incentive to commit to the group goal – a ‘what’s in it for me’ - as well as a group incentive. It’s also important to set a goal that is seen as achievable, so the group as a whole is more likely to commit to it. Seijts also conducts research on issues of organizational justice and fairness. One of his studies looks at the implementation of drug and alcohol testing policies in the workplace. Canadians, he finds, appear to be less accepting of these policies than Americans. To help organizations gain greater acceptance from their employees, he and his team looked at the procedures used in implementing such policies. “We learned, for example, that as long as you explain to people why these policies are necessary, involve them in the development and implementation, show concern for their individual needs, and give them adequate notice, their perceived fairness tends to be higher.” Seijts is now comparing traditional drug and alcohol tests to on-the-job impairment tests, which he believes are more relevant, and ultimately fairer. Seijts is also studying employment equity policies, which often stigmatize their beneficiaries and may result in a low perception of their skills. Seijts is primarily interested in how negative reactions to employment equity policies can be mitigated. In one of his studies, Seijts looks at recruitment and selection processes, particularly the job interview, which is traditionally unstructured. A structured interview, which, among other things, poses the same questions to each applicant and evaluates their answers through a scoring guide, predicts job performance much better. “We discovered that once you use more validated instruments, such as structured interviews, people tend to think more highly of the selection process --- they believe the recruitment and selection process is more fair.”
Professor Seijts's Homepage
|