How can companies decrease the disruptive effects of stretch goals? The moderating role of interpersonal- and informational- justice climates

Abstract

This article attempts to determine whether stretch goals disrupt organizations and, if so, how organizations minimize those disruptions. We consider how two different kinds of justice climates − interpersonal and informational − interact to influence employees’ unethical behavior and relationship conflicts in the face of stretch goals. The results from 117 departments (including a total of 351 employees and 117 managers) in six Chinese banks support our hypotheses that stretch goals foster unethical behavior and intensify relationship conflict among employees. Furthermore, we find that informational-justice climates greatly reduce the disruptive effect of stretch goals on unethical behavior, and we find that interpersonal-justice climates greatly reduce the disruptive effect of stretch goals on relationship conflict. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Interrelation of Controls for Autonomous Motivation: A Field Study of Productivity Gains Through Pressure-Induced Process Innovation

“…In so doing, we extend the contingency perspective of Sitkin et al (2011) by showing how both psychological and contextual factors are implicated in explaining individuals' behaviors in organizations. In this regard, our findings not only address the controversy in the prior literature on stretch targets (e.g., Zhang and Jia 2013;Gary et al 2017;Pina e Cunha et al 2017), but more broadly demonstrate the conditions where the introduction of extrinsic motivators enhances autonomous motivation by employees. This responds to a call by Weibel et al (2014) for research on what behavioral economics labels an instance of the crowding-in effect of motivation.…”

Managing Carbon Aspirations: The Influence of Corporate Climate Change Targets on Environmental Performance

“…By aspiring to improve their environmental performance in a significant manner, firms commit themselves to outcomes hitherto unthinkable and unobserved. Targets trigger cognitive and motivational processes (Sitkin et al 2011;Zhang and Jia 2013) which direct, energize, and encourage persistence needed to work toward their achievement, and which indirectly stimulate changed behaviors inside the organization (Locke and Latham 2009). Consequently, targets have the potential to unleash creativity, urgency, and excitement among employees with the purpose of collaborating, learning, innovating, and deviating from existing routines, habits, and practices to drive significant performance improvements (Halme 2002;Winter 2000).…”

“…Prior research has noted that the achievement of targets can be impeded when actors find it difficult to identify with them, or when targets provoke disappointment and demotivation because progress is slow. Particularly since climate change targets may by their nature be associated with significant uncertainty in relation to the processes and strategies for implementation, they can create internal resistance (Mishina et al 2010;Sitkin et al 2011;Zhang and Jia 2013). For example, there is the recognition that technological and operational "lock-in" due to long and large-scale investment cycles determines firms' performance levels for years if not decades (Unruh 2002).…”

Productivity vs security: mitigating conflicting goals in organizations

“…A growing body of research shows that goal setting, when not used in a considerate manner, is also linked to a series of undesirable consequences. Among those are unethical behavior, disruptive effects on organizational climate and deterioration of subsequent performance if one misses one's goal (Welsh & Ordoñez, 2014;Zhang & Jia, 2013;Kohn, 1999).…”