The need for goal-setting theory and motivation constructs in Lean management

Abstract

Balzer, Brodke, Kluse, and Zickar (2019) do a good job of highlighting how industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology as a discipline could be beneficial to Lean management theory and practice. There exist significant concerns in the current Lean literature on successful implementation of Lean and how it can sustain over time (Bhasin, 2012; Cochran & Kawada, 2012; Scherrer-Rathje, Boyel, & Deflorin, 2009). Although historical analysis of Lean's success in Toyota has shown the crucial role individual factory workers have played in suggesting and making Lean improvements (Holweg, 2007), little analysis of individual-level phenomena has been done. One area of potentially significant impact is motivation theories, particularly goal-setting theory. Although Harris, Stone, Mayeshiba, Componation, and Farrington (2014) called for greater understanding of worker motivation in Lean, to date scant research has looked into this area, with the exception of Cochran, Schmidt, Oxtoby, Hensley, and Barnes (2017). Cochran et al. (2017) looked specifically at how the Lean-related collective system design approach could be conceptualized as a way to better communicate organization goals to workers to develop agreement and understanding. Whereas Cochran et al. (2017) looked at a particular application of goals and motivation, Lean processes as a whole need greater examination related to motivation. Motivation in most definitions from our field focuses on the direction, intensity, and persistence of actions (Kanfer, Chen, & Pritchard, 2008). Organizations need workers to be focused on Lean-related concerns and on putting effort toward Lean initiative success. Continuous improvement and waste reduction can only function when workers direct their attention appropriately and persist at relevant behaviors. This commentary will highlight how aspects of goal-setting theory could help explain worker behavior in Lean initiatives and the success or failure of Lean initiatives. It will also highlight how there are potential areas of tension between how Lean is implemented and existing I-O psychology knowledge related to how people are motivated. Goal-setting theory Goal-setting theory is one of the most prominent theories in the field of I-O psychology (Latham & Sejits, 2016; Locke & Latham, 2002). Through a significant body of empirical work, strong evidence has been found for specific and difficult goals having the greatest positive impact on individual performance (Locke & Latham, 1990, 2002; Sejits, Latham, & Woodwark, 2013). Three major types of goals have primarily been examined in the literature: performance goals (outcomeand result-focused), learning goals (knowledge-or competency-acquisition focused), and behavioral goals (certain desired behaviors are done; Latham, Seijts, & Slocum, 2016). The positive benefit of specific and difficult goals is weakened or removed when some important psychological conditions are not met. One major condition is goal commitment/acceptance.

How to Sustain Healthcare Process Improvement in Heterogenous Teams? Evidence from a Systems Dynamic Model

“…However, most of our current understanding on PI initiatives is based on research on homogenous teams such as groups of physicians or nurses (e.g., Tucker and Singer, 2015). Even if studies exist (e.g., Schmidt, 2019), they do not necessarily look at the dynamics among different types of people within the group. Our study is an attempt to fill this gap.…”

Japanese Nursing Students’ Motivations and Learning Needs Regarding Studying English: A Cross-Sectional Study

“…Self-efficacy is a potential mediator of the goal-performance relationship. Perceived self-efficacy is the belief a person has that he or she has the capability to accomplish what he or she has set out to do in a task situation (Bandura, 1997; Schmidt, 2019). For example, if students feel difficulty or have interest in communicating with people who do not speak Japanese, it can be a motivation to learn English and they may feel a need to study English.…”

Group Capabilities and Process Quality in Complex Problem Solving

“…To gain an initial understanding of which KE group-process factors might relate to objective or hard improvement results, also the OB literature was perused; first, the commitment-to-change theory because KEs lead to process adjustments, which tends to require changing one's behaviour and tasks (Ajzen, 1991;. Second, goal-setting theory was reviewed as well , because improvement tends to starts with a situation in which goals are not met and KE groups aim to achieve them (Bellisario & Pavlov, 2018;Schmidt, 2019). Finally, sense-making theory was explored, as people tend to reject change such as process improvements when they do not believe that an intended change does make sense for the organization (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979) and because continuous process improvement will only be sustained and lead to OPI when it makes sense to the participants Malik & Abdallah, 2020).…”