Motivational control of motor performance by goal setting in a dual-task situation

Schmidt, Klaus‐Helmut; Kleinbeck, Uwe; Brockmann, W.

doi:10.1007/bf00308598

Cited by 32 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Locke and Latham (1990: 52-54) also review the studies that assign multiple goals and find that the primary results relating goal difficulty and performance carry over to the case of multiple performance goals. While these studies recognize the prevalence of multiple goals, they model them as distinct tasks, i.e., tasks and goals share a one-to-one relationship (e.g., Schmidt et al 1984). As we argued in the previous subsection, there is often a one-to-many relation between tasks and goals.…”

Section: Goal-setting and Organization Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hoping for A to Z While Rewarding Only A: Complex Organizations and Multiple Goals

Ethiraj

Levinthal

2009

Organization Science

217

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the trade-offs inherent in the pursuit and fulfillment of multiple performance goals in complex organizations. We examine two related research questions: (1) What are the organizational implications of pursuing multiple performance goals? (2) Are local and myopic (as opposed to global) goal prioritization strategies effective in dealing with multiple goals? We employ a series of computational experiments to examine these questions. Our results from these experiments both formalize the intuition behind existing wisdom and provide new insights. We show that imposing a multitude of weakly correlated performance measures on even simple organizations (i.e., an organization comprised of independent employees) leads to a performance freeze in that actors are not able to identify choices that enhance organizational performance across the full array of goals. This problem increases as the degree of interdependence of organizational action increases. We also find that goal myopia, spatial differentiation of performance goals, and temporal differentiation of performance goals help rescue organizations from this status quo trap. In addition to highlighting a new class of organizational problems, we argue that in a world of boundedly rational actors, incomplete guides to action in the sense of providing only a subset of underlying goals prove more effective at directing and coordinating behavior than more complete representations of underlying objectives. Management, in the form of the articulation of a subset of goals, provides a degree of clarity and focus in a complex world. Hoping for A to Z while rewarding only A: Complex organizations and multiple goals AbstractThis paper explores the trade-offs inherent in the pursuit and fulfillment of multiple performance goals in complex organizations. We examine two related research questions: (1) What are the organizational implications of pursuing multiple performance goals? (2) Are local and myopic (as opposed to global) goal prioritization strategies effective in dealing with multiple goals? We employ a series of computational experiments to examine these questions. Our results from these experiments both formalize the intuition behind existing wisdom and provide new insights. We show that imposing a multitude of weakly correlated performance measures on even simple organizations (i.e., an organization comprised of independent employees) leads to a performance freeze in that actors are not able to identify choices that enhance organizational performance across the full array of goals. This problem increases as the degree of interdependence of organizational action increases. We also find that goal myopia, spatial differentiation of performance goals, and temporal differentiation of performance goals help rescue organizations from this status quo trap. In addition to highlighting a new class of organizational problems, we argue that in a world of boundedly rational actors, incomplete guides to action in the sense of providing only a subset of underl...

show abstract

Section: Goal-setting and Organization Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hoping for A to Z While Rewarding Only A: Complex Organizations and Multiple Goals

Ethiraj

Levinthal

2009

Organization Science

217

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Referring again back to the additive factors method, this pattern suggests that one of the sensorimotor stages involved in L and three of the sensorimotor stages involved in E are motivation-sensitive. The general fact that stages are sensitive to motivational manipulation is not unexpected: it has been reported in a number of earlier studies that sensorimotor performance depends on motivation (Kleinsorge, 2001;Pessiglione et al, 2007;Schmidt, Kleinbeck, & Brockmann, 1984).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Effects of the motivation focus on manual grasping.

Steinberg

Bock

2013

Psychology & Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have shown before that grasping movements from a given starting position to a given object differ substantially when performed as a typical laboratory task (L) and when they are embedded in an everyday-like context (E). The present study investigates whether this context-dependence is related to the subjects' motivation focus. We manipulated subjects' motivation focus and observed significant effects of Context on performance, as in previous work, but also significant effects of Motivation and Context x Motivation on performance. The interaction term could not be interpreted as generally higher or lower motivation sensitivity in L than in E, and therefore it doesn't support the hypothesis that context-dependence of grasping can be reduced to motivation-dependence. We conclude that some brain areas contribute differently to L and to E, thus producing contextdependence, and that those areas are differently sensitive to motivation.

show abstract

“…Kernan and Lord (1989) found that individuals with no specific goals generally evaluated their performance more positively than those with specific, hard goals in response to varying degrees of negative feedback. Schmidt, Kleinbeck, and Brockman (1984) showed that goal specificity and difficulty had a significant effect on the allocation of cognitive resources. When two tasks were performed simultaneously, more resources were allocated to the task with a specific and difficult goal than to the one with no specific goal.…”

Section: Motivation: Goals and Incentivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Process in skill acquisition: motivation, interruptions, memory, affective states, and metacognition

Langan‐Fox

Armstrong

Balvin

et al. 2002

Australian Psychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Motivational control of motor performance by goal setting in a dual-task situation

Cited by 32 publications

References 19 publications

Hoping for A to Z While Rewarding Only A: Complex Organizations and Multiple Goals

Hoping for A to Z While Rewarding Only A: Complex Organizations and Multiple Goals

Effects of the motivation focus on manual grasping.

Process in skill acquisition: motivation, interruptions, memory, affective states, and metacognition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About