Stretch targets: What makes them effective?

Academy of Management Executive

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 48-60

  Thompson, Kenneth R ^a,b   Hochwarter, Wayne A ^c   Mathys, Nicholas J ^a,d  

^a DEPAUL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b National Academy of Management

^c The University of Alabama   (United States)

^d Department of Management ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1842707556     PISSN: 10795545     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5465/ame.1997.9709231663     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. J.W. Dean, Jr. and J.R. Evans, Total Quality: Management organizations, and strategy, 1994. St. Paul, Minn.: West.
2. For a discussion regarding the development of a learning organization, see Peter Kline, "Ten Steps to a Learning Organization," Executive Excellence, 12(4), 1995, 20.
3. Also see James Collins, "Building a Visionary Company," California Management Review, 37(2), 1995, 80-100.
4. While General Electric has used stretch goals for years (see Strat Sherman, "Stretch Goals: The Dark Side of Asking for Miracles," Fortune, 132(10), 1995, pg. 231-232) the results of many stretch goal programs are just being written about.
5. For example see; A.V. Feigenbaum. "Quality Leadership in the Global Economy," Journal of Quality and Participation, 17(2), 1994, 36-41;
6. S. Tully, "Why Go for Stretch Targets," Fortune, 130(10), 1994, 145-158.
7. F. Hume. "Developing Technology to Increase Competitiveness," Industry Week, 241(21), 1992, 35;
8. A.V. Roth and C.A. Giffi. "Critical Factors for Achieving World Class Manufacturing: Benchmarking North American Manufacturing Strategies," Operations Management Review, 11(2), 1995, 79-84.
9. In addition, it has been suggested that goal setting contradicts the initial tenets of TQM as outlined by Demming and others. Paula Phillips Carson and Kerry D. Carson discuss this discrepancy in "Demming Versus Traditional Management Theorists on Goal Setting: Can Both Be Right?" Business Horizons, 36(5), 1993, 79-84.
10. For studies examining the effects of goal difficulty on goal acceptance, see E. Locke. "Toward a Theory of Task Motivation and Incentives," Organizational and Human Performance, 3, 1968, 157-189;
11. P. Christopher Early, Terry Connolly, and Goran Ekegren. "Goals, Strategy Development, and Task Performance: Some Limits on the Efficacy of Goal Setting," Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 1989, 24-33;
12. John Hollenbeck and Howard Klein. "Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research," Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(2), 1987, 212-220;
13. and John Hollenbeck and Arthur Brief. "The Effects of Individual Differences and Goal Origin on Goal Setting and Performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40(3), 1987, 392-414.
14. While there has been definitive research as to reasons why stretch targets seem to work so well, several business leaders support the notion that employee attitudes need to change and a new paradigm of operations need to be found, for example Hume, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, op. cit., 1992;
15. K.R. Thompson, "A conversation with Robert W. Galvin," Organizational Dynamics, 20(4), 1992, 56-69;
16. Shoji Shiba, Alan Graham, and David Walden, A New American TQM: Four Practical Revolutions in Management, 1993. Cambridge, Mass.: Center for Quality Management, particularly pg. 395-406.
17. See M. McGill, J. Slocum, and D. Lei. "Management Practices in Learning Organizations," Organizational Dynamics, 21(1), 1992, 5-17.
18. For a discussion of Motorola's team-based TQM programs, see K.R. Thompson. "A Conversation with Robert W. Galvin." Organizational Dynamics, 20(4), 1992, 56-69.
19. K.R. Thompson. Organizational Dynamics, Ibid., 61.
20. See S. Tully. "Why Go for Stretch Targets," Fortune, 130(10), 1994, 145-158.
21. S. Tully. Fortune, Ibid., 150.
22. See A.V. Feigenbaum. "The Making of a World Class I Railroad," Railway Age, 193(2), 1992, 20-21.
23. For more discussion regarding the organizations discussed in this article as well as others, see Brown Railway Age, op. cit., 1994;
24. Feigenbaum Railway Age, op. cit., 1992;
25. Feigenbaum Railway Age, op. cit., 1994;
26. A.V. Roth and A.S. Marucheck. "Innovations That Work for Learning Organizations," Planning Review, 22(3), 1994, 33;
27. A.V. Roth, A.S. Marucheck, A. Kemp, and D. Trimble. "The Knowledge Factory for Accelerated Learning Practices," Planning Review, 22(3), 1994, 26-32.
28. For examples of some of the streams of goal setting research, see G. Latham and E. Locke. "Self-Regulation Through Goal Setting," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 1991, 212-247;
29. E. Locke and G. Latham. A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1990);
30. G. Latham and G. Yukl. "A Review of Research on the Application of Goal Setting in Organizations," Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 1975, 824-846;
31. J. Austin and P. Bobko. "Goal-Setting Theory: Unexplored Areas and Future Research Needs," Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58(4), 1985, 289-308;
32. D. Terpstra and E. Rozell. "The Relationship of Goal Setting to Organizational Profitability," Group and Organization Management, 19(3), 1994, 285-294.
33. Locke Group and Organization Management, op. cit., 1968.
34. Most research supports that hard goals lead to higher levels of performance. However, that is only under conditions where the goals have been accepted by the individual. For example, see J. Hollenbeck and H. Klein, Group and Organization Management, op. cit.;
35. G. Latham and E. Locke, Group and Organization Management, op. cit.;
36. E. Locke, K. Shaw, L. Saari and G. Latham. "Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980," Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1981, 125-152.
37. See F.W. Taylor. The Principles of Scientific Management, 1911. New York: Harber & Brothers. This seminal piece was reprinted in 1967.
38. For both early and recent pieces examining a goals versus no goals situation, see L.C. Lawrence and P.C. Smith. "Group Decision and Employee Participation," Journal of Applied Psychology, 39, 1955, 334-337;
39. M. Barrick, M. Mount and J. Strauss. "Conscientiousness and Performance of Sales Representatives: Test of the Mediating Effects of Goal Setting," Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 1993, 715-722;
40. I.R. Gellatly and J.P. Meyer. "The Effects of Goal Difficulty on Physiological Arousal, Cognition, and Task Performance," Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(5), 1992, 694-704.
41. Taylor Journal of Applied Psychology, op. cit., 1911.
42. For discussion regarding specific versus general goal setting, see Latham and Locke Journal of Applied Psychology, op. cit., 1991;
43. Locke and Latham Journal of Applied Psychology, op. cit., 1990;
44. Gellatly and Meyers Journal of Applied Psychology, op. cit., 1992
45. and Barrick et al., Journal of Applied Psychology, op. cit., 1993.
46. See M. Campion and R.G. Lord. "A Control System Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 1982, 265-287.
47. This curvilinear relationship is demonstrated in A.C. Stedry and E. Kay. The Effecfs of Goal Difficulty on Performance (Crontonville, N. Y.: General Electric Company, Behavioral Research Services, 1964);
48. and also see J. Forward and A. Zander, "Choice of Unattainable Group Goals and Effects of Performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19, 1971, 184-199.
49. For excellent articles discussing the value of autonomy, see M.R. Barrick and M. Mount. "Autonomy as a Moderator of the Relationship Between the Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance," Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 1993, 111-118;
50. B.K. Evans and D.G. Fischer. "A Hierarchical Model of Participatory Decision-Making, Job Autonomy, and Perceived Control," Human Relations, 45(11), 1992, 1169-1189;
51. J.E. Sawyer. "Goal and Process Clarity: Specification of Multiple Constructs of Role Ambiguity and a Structural Equation Model of their Antecedents and Consequences," Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(2), 1992, 130-142.
52. Tully, Journal of Applied Psychology, op. cit., 1994, p. 146-148.
53. See L.E. Parker and R.H. Price. "Empowered Managers and Empowered Workers: The Effects of Managerial Support and Managerial Perceived Control on Workers' Sense of Control over Decision Making," Human Relations, 47(8), 1994, 911-928;
54. S. Wernick. "Self-Directed Work Teams and Empowerment," Journal of Quality and Participation, 17(4), 1994, 34-36;
55. E.E. Lawler III. "Total Quality Management and Employee Involvement: Are They Compatible?" Academy of Management Executive, 8(1), 1994, 68-76.
56. Roth and Giffi, Academy of Management Executive, op. cit., 1995.
57. For more discussion about creating a fail-safe environment and "safefailing," see A. Roth and A. Marucheck, "Innovations that Work for Learning Organizations," Planning Review, 22, May/June 1995, 33.
58. For a discussion regarding conflict resolution tactics, see A.C. Amason, K.R. Thompson, W.A. Hochwarter and A.W. Harrison. "Conflict: An Important Dimension in Successful Management Teams," Organizational Dynamics, 24(2), 1995, 20-35.
59. A.C. Amason, K.R. Thompson, W.A. Hochwarter and A.W. Harrison. Organizational Dynamics, Ibid., 1996.
60. Hume, Organizational Dynamics, op. cit., 1992.
61. Tully, Organizational Dynamics, op. cit., 1994.
62. Sherman, Organizational Dynamics, op. cit., 1995.
63. Thompson, Organizational Dynamics, op. cit., 1992.
64. For a good review of what leadership traits are needed in a TQM environment, see Sheila M. Puffer & Daniel J. McCarthy. "A Framework for Leadership in a TQM Context," Journal of Quality Management, 1(1), 1996, 109-130.
65. Monitoring and providing feedback are major factors that differentiate between effective and less effective leaders as reported in Judith Komaki, "Toward effective supervision: An operant analysis and comparison of managers at work." Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 1986, 270-279.