Goal commitment has been given a critical role in goal-setting theory, yet the factors associated with commitment to difficult goals have not often been studied. This study examined possible antecedents of commitment to difficult goals. Two sets of such variables were examined: situational (goal publicness and goal origin) and personal (need for achievement and locus of control) factors. Both sets of variables accounted for significant amounts of variance in goal commitment among 190 college students with academic goals. A Person X Situation interaction also accounted for a significant increment of variance. Specifically, commitment to difficult goals was higher when (a) goals were made public rather than private, (b) when locus of control was internal, and (c) when subjects were high in need for achievement, especially when goals were self-set as opposed to assigned.We would like to thank Karen Pauli for assistance in data collection and Colleen Kniffen for technical assistance. We would also like to thank Daniel R. Ilgen and two anonymous reviewers who provided helpful comments on earlier versions of this article.

More than 40 years ago, Taylor and Wherry (1951) hypothesized that performance appraisal ratings obtained for administrative purposes, such as pay raises or promotions, would be more lenient than ratings obtained for research, feedback, or employee development purposes. However, research on appraisal purpose has yielded inconsistent results, with roughly half of such studies supporting this hypothesis and the other half refuting it. To account for those differences, a meta‐analysis of performance appraisal purpose research was conducted with 22 studies and a total sample size of 57,775. Our results support Taylor and Wherry's hypothesis as performance evaluations obtained for administrative purposes were, on average, one‐third of a standard deviation larger than those obtained for research or employee development purposes. In addition, moderator analyses indicated larger differences between ratings obtained for administrative and research purposes when performance evaluations were made in field settings, by practicing managers, and for real world subordinates. Implications for researchers and practitioners are discussed.

No abstract

Recent arguments by Dalton, Todor, and Krackhardt (1982) have highlighted the need to distinguish between turnover frequency (i.e., the number of separations) and turnover functionality (i.e., the nature of separations). Turnover functionality, which considers both turnover frequency and the performance level of leaven and stayers, is more critical to organizational effectiveness than is turnover frequency. We test whether work attitudes, widely praised as predictors of turnover frequency, are also useful predictors of turnover functionality. The results of our study, using a sample of 112 retail salespersons, indicate that (a) the traditional measure of turnover frequency overstates the detrimental effects of turnover on organizational effectiveness, in that 53% of the turnover was, in fact, functional, and (b) turnover functionality, which emphasizes the performance levels of stayers and leaven, is unrelated to work attitudes. The practical implications of these results and directions for future research are discussed.Copyright ©; 1986 American Psychological Association. This is a post-print version of an article originally published in Journal of Applied Psychology, 1986 Volume 71, Issue 4. The version of record is available through the American Psychological Association. "This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record." 2 During the past 40 years, a substantial amount of evidence in the field of applied psychology has refuted the notion that satisfaction leads to performance (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985;Lawler & Porter, 1967;Schwab & Cummings, 1970). As a result, applied psychologists have frequently justified the study of work attitudes by claiming that these attitudes are significantly related to turnover. Steers's (1984) statement that "Job attitudes affect organizational effectiveness to the extent they influence turnover" (p. 442) is common among textbook treatments of this issue. Indeed, a large volume of research supports this position (Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino, 1979;Steel & Ovalle, 1984).A major assumption in the turnover-attitude literature is that turnover is an inherently bad occurrence and that turnover can be reduced by affecting attitudes toward the job. Hulin (1968), for example, was able to reduce turnover among clerical workers from 30% to 12% by increasing the level of job satisfaction. Recently however, many authors (Abelson & Baysinger, 1984;Dalton, Krackhardt, & Porter, 1981;Dalton & Todor, 1979Dalton, Todor, & Krackhardt, 1982;Mobley, 1982;Muchinsky & Tuttle, 1979;Porter & Steers, 1973;Staw, 1980) have suggested that the traditional treatment of turnover overstates the negative consequences associated with this behavior. Dalton and Tudor (1979), for example, argued that in many cases the individuals who leave an organization are poor performers, and that the separation of these individuals actually provides the organization with an opportunity to replace poor performers with more effective workers. Da...

No abstract