See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/280081888

Task Complexity as a Moderator of Goal Effects: A Meta-Analysis

Article in Journal of Applied Psychology · August 1987

DOI: 10.1037//0021-9010.72.3.416

CITATIONS READS
212 4,581

3 authors:

Robert Wood Anthony Mento

Macquarie University Loyola University Maryland
127 PUBLICATIONS 12,278 CITATIONS 29 PUBLICATIONS 2,238 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Edwin A. Locke
University of Maryland, College Park
262 PUBLICATIONS 73,370 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert Wood on 10 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ychoioay
JounMl of Applied hychoio
\m . Vbl.
Vbl 7 l N J 4lfr-«5
4lfr« owl-9010/t7/IOO.75

Task Complexity as a Moderator of Goal Effects: A Meta-Analysis

Robert E. Wood Anthony J. Mento
Australian Graduate School of Management Loyda College in Marjiand
University of New South Wales
Kensington, New South Wales, Australia
Edwin A. Locke
University of Maryland

Much evidence exists that supports the use of goal setting as a motivational technique for enhancing
task performance; howevei; little attention has been given to the role of task characteristics as poten-
tial moderating conditions of goal effects. Meta-analysis procedures were used to assess the modera-
tor effects of task complexity for goal-setting studies conducted from 1966 to 1985 (n = 125). The
reliability ofthe task complexity ratings was .92. Three sets of analyses were conducted: for goal-
difficulty results (hard vs. easy), for goal specificity-difficulty (specific difficult goals vs. do-best or
no goal), and for all studies collapsed across goal difficulty and goal specificity-difficulty. It was
generally found that goal-setting effects were strongest for easy tasks (reaction time, brainstorming),
d = .76, and weakest for more complex tasks (business game simulations, scientific and engineering
work, faculty research productivity), d = .42. Implications for future research on goal setting and
the validity of generalizing results are discussed.

Twenty years of empirical research has established that spe- from a lack of standardization in definition and a confounding
cific, challenging goals lead to higher levels of task perfortnance of individual and task characteristics (Fleishman. 1975; Hack-
than no goals, vague goals, or easy goals (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & man, 1969; Weick, 1965; Wood, 1986). As a result, there has
Latham, 1981; Pinder, 1984). Interest is now turning to iden- been a lack of integration ofthe evidence for task effects from
tifyitig the theoretical limits of goal setting, for example, the sttidies in different areas and, in some cases, inconsistencies in
variables that moderate the positive performance effects of results in a given area (Wood, 1986).
goals (e.g., Austin & Bobko, 1984; Locke et al., 1981; Naylor & The problems of inconsistent results are evident in goal-set-
Ilgen, 1984). ting studies that have considered the effects of task characteris-
One variable of potential importance to the theory of goal tics. Frost and Mahoney (1976) found that challenging goals led
setting is task complexity. Tasks are an integral part of all stud- to higher performance than did easy goals on a simple task but
ies of human performance, and task characteristics have been not on a complex task. Jackson and Zedeck (1982), howevei;
suggested as moderators in a diverse range of areas, including reported no such differences for two tasks of differing complex-
job design (Hackman & Oldham, 1980), personnel selection ity. Frost and Mahoney also found that subjects with specific,
(e.g., Peterson & Bownas, 1982), informatioti processing and challenging goals outperformed subjects with nonspecific goals
decision making (e.g., Streufert & Streufert, 1978), and psycho- by more on the complex task than on the simple task. Baumler
motor activities (Fleishman, 1975). Locke et al. (1981) have (1971), using a much more complex set of tasks, obtained ex-
speculated that goals will have less direct effects due to effort, actly the opposite results.
attention, and persistence on complex tasks, and that indirect The inconsistencies in restilts between these studies are prob-
effects due to strategy development will become more impor- ably due, in part, to different manipulations of task axnplexity.
tant to performance. Further, Wood (1985) has argued that spe- These were path-goal multiplicity (Frost & Mahoney, 1976),
cific, challenging goals may lead to suboptitnal search proce- manual versus cognitive tasks (Jackson & Zedeck. 1982). and
dures on complex tasks (e.g., Baumler, 1971; Hubei; 1985). interdependence of decisions (Baumlei; 1971). Moreovei; in two
From this literature we hypothesize that goals, on the average, of these three studies, the tasks used in the complex condition
will have less pronounced perfortnance effects on complex tasks were not vwy complex. In the Frost and Mahoney study, the
than on simple tasks. complex task was a jigsaw puzzle with all pieces painted the
The study of characteristics such as complexity has suffered same color. In Jackson and Zedeck's study, subjects performing
the complex task had to calculate floor covering requirements
from a plan for a single-level, three-room building. Neither of
Funding for this research was provided to the second author through these tasks approach the complexity of tasks such as profes-
a Summer Research Grant fhxn the Sellinger School of Business and sional counseling, investment decision making, or air-traffic
Management at Loyola College.
control (Wood. 1986). Therefore, the modoating eflfects of
Correspondence conceming this article should be sent via air mail to
tasks may not have been adequately tested in either of these
Robert E. Wood, Australian Graduate School of Management, Univer-
sity of New South Wales, PO. Box 1, Kensington, New South Wales studies because of weak manipulations of complexity.
2033, Australia. Baumler (1971) used a more powerful manipulation of taik
416
 TASK COMPLEXITY 417

complexity; however, his study only examined one goal attri- ofthe moderator variable. The reliability ofthe task-complexity
bute (spedfidty). Also, becatise the levels of goals assigned to scores in the present study was very high (r = .92).
subjects were not reported, the possibility that the lower perfor- Thus, the purpose of the present sttidy was to examine the
mance for specific goals in the complex condition was due to moderating effects of task complexity across existing goal-set-
subjects setting lower goals, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, to ting studies, using a meta-analysis approach. Based on earlier
this point, no adequate test of task complexity as a moderator speculations (Locke et al., 1981; Wood, 1985), laiger effects
of goal efiects has been conducted. should be found for studies using simple tasks and smaller
Of course, goal setting has been found to have positive perfor- effects for sttidies with more complex tasks. The specific
mance efiects on tasks of varying complexity, ranging from sim- hypotheses to be tested are as follows:
ple brainstorming tasks (e.g., Locke, 1967) to college course Hypothesis 1. The positive performance effects of specific
work (Locke A Bryan, 1968) to complex scientific work (La- and difficult goals (vs. do-best goals) will be greater on simple
tham. Mitchell, & Dossett, 1978). However, this cannot be ac- tasks than on complex tasks.
cepted as evidence that tasks do not moderate the goal perfor- Hypothesis 2. The positive performance effects of difficult
mance effects of goals without considering the size of effects for goals (vs. moderate or easy goals) will be greater on simple tasks
tasks of differing complexity. It is possible, for the reasons men- than on complex tasks.
tioned earlier, that goals have a relatively large performance
effect on simple tasks and a smaller, but significant, effect on Method
complex tasks. If this were tht case, then the correct test for the
moderator effects of task complexity would be a comparison of To identify studies appropriate for the meta-analyses, we manually
the magnitude of effects between goal setting sttidies that have searched the Psychological Abstracts and the Social Science Citation
used simple tasks and those that have used complex tasks. Meta- Index and systematically reviewed the Journal of Applied Psychology,
Academy ofAfanagement Journal, Organizational Behavior and Hu-
analysis is a technique that allows such a comparison.
man Performance, and Personnel Psychology from January 1966 to De-
Within the last decade, meta-analysis techniques have been cember 1984 (see Appendix). Studies were excluded if an effect size
developed that permit the quantitative aggregation of results could not be calculated.
across studies (Hunter, Schmidt, & Jackson, 1982; Rosenthal, In the goal-difficulty analysis, three studies were excluded because
1978). An advantage of meta-analysis for our current purposes they contained an experimental artifact in the easy-goal condition that
is that the influence of moderator variables such as task com- involved instructing subjects to stop working when the easy goal was
plexity can be examined. This first requires that the results of reached. This instruction may serve to artifactually inflate the goal-
all sttidies be converted to a common statistic, either d or r^i, difficulty-performance relationship. A number of studies were ex-
cluded from the goal difficulty and goal specificity-difficulty meta-anal-
(Hunter et al., 1982). so that results can be cumulated across
yses that used a within-subjects, as opposed to a between-subjects, ex-
studies. perimental design. In discussing quantitative approaches to literature
After correcting for as many ofthe different sources of error reviews. Green and Hall (1984) cautioned that it is incorrect and inap-
variance as possible (i.e., sampling erroi; range restriction, reli- propriate to include data from a within-subjects design into a meta-
ability of measures, etc.), any remaining variance in the results analysis because effect sizes cannot be accurately computed. Unpub-
can be tested to see if differences in size of effects between stud- lished studies known to the authors were included. A list of specific
ies are due to the hypothesized moderator. If the majority ofthe studies excluded from the meta-analyses can be found in Mento, Steel,
variance in the results of studies is removed by the corrections and Karren (1987).
The remaining studies available for the meta-analyses included 72
fcM" errors, then the ai^gument for any moderator effect can be
studies of goal-difficulty effects (difficult vs. moderate or easy) and 53
rejected without any further testing. Schmidt, Hunter, and
studies of goal specificity-difficulty effects (specific, difficult vs. do-
Pearlman (1982) have suggested that if approximately 75% of your-best or no goal). Full details of studies from 1966 to August 1984
the total variance across studies can be accounted for by sam- are reported in Tables I and 2 in the Mento et al. (1987) article. The
pling, then any apftarent moderator effect is most likely due to unpublished studies that were added to the Mento et al. studies were
capitalization on chance. Chesney (1986), Shaw (1984), and Smith, Locke, and Barry (1986).
A test of the moderaUu- hypothesis is the strength ofthe rela- Studies included correlational and experimental designs as well as labo-
tionship between the study statistic and the moderator variable. ratory and field settings. Moderator analyses conducted by Mento et al.
showed that the size of effects for goal difficulty and goal specificity-
This can be established by regressing the moderator variable on
difficulty were not affected by study design.
the study statistic (Mabe & West, 1982; Steel & OvaUe, 1984). For experimental studies, results were converted to the effect-size sta-
V^th the regression approach, testing the significance of the tistic d. Results from correlational studies werefirstconverted to point-
beta weight is a test of the moderator effect. Because it allows biserial r (r^). These were then converted to an effect-size d to provide
for tests to be based on the total sample, this approach is less a common statistic for cumulating effect sizes across both correlational
susceptible to chance effects than the subgroup approach de- and experimental studies. Because the size ofthe point-biserial correla-
scribed by Hunter et al. (1982). Howevei; it does require at least tion is affected by the relative proportion of cases in the two treatment
an ordinal measure on the moderator for the purposes of regres- groups, effect sizes for all of the individual studies were corrected for
sion analyses. Because task complexity is ordinal in nature, as differences in subgroup sample sizes when appropriate (Hunter et al.,
1982). When cumulating results, effect sizes were weighted by the sam-
distinct friMn other commonly used moderators—such as sex—
ple sizes for studies, as recommended by Hunter et al. (1982).
which are nominal categories, this approach was considered ap-
Of particular importance to the analyses and to our later discussion
prqxiate for tbe moderator test in the current study. The valid- of resulu were the reliabilities of measures used for the performance
ity of the lesulu also depends on the reliability ofthe measure criteria (in all studies) and the predictor variables (in field studies that
418 R. WOOD, A. MENTO, AND E. LOCKE

used a questionnaire measure of goal difficulty and goal specificity). The used more complex tasks. It was felt that there were enough
average reported reliabilities of criteria were .80 for studies using ratings studies at different levels across the range of task complexity to
of performance and .92 for studies with objective measures of perfor-
provide an adequate test of the moderate hypotheses.
mance. For the predictor variables in field studies, the average reliabili-
For the 72 studies of goal difficulty (iV - 7.548). the mean
ties were .72 (lowest .66) for goal difficulty and .81 (lowest .70) for goal
specificity. effect size, corrected for measurement error, was d ~ .5770. and
These reliability estimates were used to correct effect-size statistics the variance corrected for measurement error was si * .1487.
and variance estimates (si) for error of measurement (cf. Hunter et al. The unexplained variance after correcting for sampling error
1982; Mabe A West, 1982). Next, sampling error variance was calcu- was .1014; therefore, only 32% ofthe variance in results across
lated using the formulas for sampling error modified to take into ac- the studies was attributable to sampling error. In the subset of
count the effect of the corrections for erron in measurement on sam- 37 studies {n =• 3.377) with experimental designs, the corrected
pling error, according to Hunter et al., 1982. Finally, the remaining un- d was .6171. The associated variance, corrected for measure-
explained variance (5^) was determined after correcting for ment error was ^c = 2118, and 26% of this was attributable to
measurement error and sampling. For both the goal difficulty and the
sampling error.
goal specificity-difficulty studies, the ratio of sampling error variance
Across the 53 studies of goal specificity-difficulty (N =
to total true variance (i.e., 5^) was less than the 75% cutoff suggested by
Schmidt et al. (1982). Therefore, supplemental analyses to test for the 6,635), the mean corrected effect size was d = .4305. and the
moderator effects of task complexity were considered appropriate. variance corrected for measurement error was 5, = .0626. The
Task-complexity scores for each ofthe 125 studies included in the variance due to sampling error was .0374, or 60% of the cor-
meta-analyses were obtained through ratings ofthe tasks used. Descrip- rected variance. For the subset of 44 experimental studies (n =
tions ofthe study tasks were given by one ofthe present authors to the 4,722), the mean corrected dwas .4669 and the associated si =
other two, who independently rated each of them on a 10-point com- .0732,60% of which was attributable to sampling erron
plexity scale on the basis ofthe general definition of task complexity in Clearly, both goal difficulty and goal specificity have signifi-
Wood (1986). Complexity involves three aspects: component complex- cant relationships with performance, and there is sufficient un-
ity (number of acte and information cues involved), coordinative com-
explained variance in the strength of these relationships across
plexity (type and number of relationships among acts and cues), and
studies to warrant investigation of potential moderators.
dynamic complexity (changes in acts and cues and the relationships
among them). These were used to code the tasks used in goal-setting
Moderator A nalyses
studies on a common scale of complexity.
The correlation between the two independent sets of ratings was .92. The results ofthe regression analyses (Table 1) support both
For initial ratings that differed by 2 or more points on the iO-point scale, hypotheses. Task complexity was a significant moderator ofthe
the raters discussed their differences and reached a consensus on the size ofthe performance relationship for goal difficulty and goal
appropriate rating. This then became the complexity score that was specificity-difficulty. Both betas were negative, indicating that
used in the moderator analyses. For all other tasks, the complexity the magnitude of goal to performance effects decreased as task
scores used in the analyses were the averages of two ratings. Examples complexity increased.
ofthe complexity scores (rounded) assigned to different tasks from goal-
Table 2 shows the average corrected effect-size difora sub-
setting studies are shown in Figure I. Note that the highest rating given
on the IO-point scale was 7. The task-complexity scores were entered as grouping of studies. The magnitude of effects for both goal spec-
the moderator variable into a regression analysis, using the corrected ificity-difficulty and goal difficulty are more pronounced on
study sutistic (i.e., </) as the criterion variable. simple tasks than on complex tasks. This result was consistent
across many different subgroupings of studies (not shown), in-
Results dicating that the result was not an artifact ofthe groupings used.
The finer the distinctions between subgroupings on the task
Tasks that have been used in goal-setting studies show a complexity scale, the greater the differences between the sim-
strong bias toward more simple tasks such as brainstorming, plest and most complex tasks for both goal diffic\ilty and goal
perceptual speed, and toy-assembly tasks. The frequency distri- specificity-difficulty. Figure 3 shows the plot ofthe mean cor-
bution of Goal-Setting Studies X Task Complexity (Figure 2) is rected d& for the different levels of task complexity. The moder-
clearly skewed to the right, with most being at the less complex ating effects of complexity were more pronounced for the goal-
end of the scale. However, among the large number of studies difficulty-performance relationship than for the goal-specific-
that have been conducted, significant numbers of studies have ity-difficulty-performance relationship.

10

RaaclionTkna Brainaionning ToyAssanMy Sawing madihe School or oolaga Suparvision Sdanoawid

work ooursawMk

SimpI* arith- PiQduction Mktdla mwiaga-

maffl

Parcaptuil Typing Floor plan Tactmician

KMtftI*

Figure I. Representative tasks for various complexity levels.

 TASK COMPLEXITY 419

50

40

30
\\ • /
\ \

Number \
N
•
•
\
N
/
/
f / •
of Studies \ \
\ \
\ \

20 \
\
\
\

10

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

Task Complexity
Figure 2. Frequency distribution ofgoal-setting studies by task complexity (n = 125).

It is interesting that across the full range of studies included quintiles by numbers of studies, are shown. The plot of these
in the regression analyses, the effects were stronger for goal spec- results (Figure 4) shows that, overall, the moderating effects on
ificity-difficulty (R^ = .0926) than for goal difficulty {R^ = the relationships between specific, difficult goals and perfor-
.0579). This is the opposite of what would be expected after an mance are most pronounced at the lowest levels of complexity.
inspection of Table 2 and Figure 3, and can be attributed to For studies in the middle range of the task-complexity scale
the difference in consistency of results in each type of study. (2.25-5.00), there was little difference in the goal-performance
The range of effect sizes was much greater in the goal-difficult\ relationship.
studies.
In Table 3, the ds for all studies combined, subgrouped into Criterion Reliabilities
One possible explanation for our results is that performance
measures for complex tasks, because they often involve less
Table 1
Multiple Regression Analysis ismj^ Task Complexity as a standardized outputs, are less reliable than performance mea-
Potential Moderator to Predict Goal Dtfficulty and Goat sures for simple tasks. Therefore, it could be argued that the
Specificity-Difficulty Performance Effects differences in goal effects between complex and simple tasks
are an artifact of the differences in criterion reliabilities. This
No. of argument does not apply to the current results because the size
Variable studies of effects for each study were adjusted for the reported reliabil-
ity ofthe criterion used.
Goal difficulty 72 -.240 .0579*
Goal specificity-difficulty 53 -.304 .0926* However, to further test the potential validity of the argu-
ment, sensitivity analyses were conducted to see how great the
•p<.05. differences in criterion reliabilities had to be in order to remove
420 R. WOOD, A. MENTO, AND E. LOCKE

Table 2
Meta-Analysis 6s for Task Complexity Subgroupings for Goal Difficulty and Goal Specificity-Difficulty
Goal difficulty Goal specificity-difficulty
Task complexity No. of No. of
rating n studies ds' n studies dt

1.0-2.75 3,297 33 .6941 2,115 19 .4727

3.0-4.75 1,615 18 .4991 3,138 21 .4338
5.0-7.25 2,636 21 .4781 1,382 13 .3583

' ds are meta-analytic corrected for measurement error.

the observed effects. The 125 studies were split into two groups The magnitude of goal effects on performance was greater on
representing simple and complex tasks. The subgroup analyses simple tasks than on complex tasks, and these results were not
were then rerun, assigning all studies in the simple group a reli- an artifact of differences in the reliability ofthe criterion mea-
ability of 1 and all studies in the complex group a range of sures. Therefore, to this point, task complexity is the only vari-
differing reliabilities (.8, .7, .6, .5, etc.). The results of these anal- able that has been shown to have a significant and robust mod-
yses showed that the differences between the two groups disap- erating effect on the performance gains that result from specific,
peared when the criterion rehability for the complex group was difficult goals. Mento et al., (1987) found inconsistent evidence
dropped to just below .6, Therefore, it appears that the observed of a moderator effect for feedback. (This may have been due to
differences in goal effects are sensitive to differences in the reli- the fact that most ofthe studies in which feedback was manipu-
abilities of performance measures of .4 and above. However, for lated could not be included in their moderator analysis.)
the current set of studies, differences in the criterion reliabilities This finding complements the theoretical discussion and evi-
between complex and simple tasks were not the cause of the dence for the strategy development effects of goals presented
differences in the size of goal effects. by Wood, Locke, and Smith (1986) and others (e.g.. Campbell,
1984; Locke et al., 1981) who have b^un to examine the pro-
Discussion cesses by which goals affect performance on complex tasks. Of
particular relevance to this study is the Wood et al. (1986)
The results of our analyses provide strong evidence for the
model, which predicts that the performance effects of goals will
hypothesized moderating effects of task complexity on the rela-
be lagged on complex tasks. This was based on studies by Shaw
tionships between the goal attributes and task performance.
(1984) and Smith et al. (1986), who found that specific challeng-
ing goals lead to significant performance effects—but only in
later trials—of a complex clerical task and a complex decision
7 -r
game, respectively. It is possible that differences in goal effects
between complex and simple tasks may disappear over repeated
performances of a task, as individuals develop effective strate-
.6- -
gies for the performance of complex tasks. Therefore, future
research into the effects of goals on complex tasks should use
Difficulty (N.72) multitrial or longitudinal methods that allow for the devekip-
5- - ment of lagged effects (e.g., Campbell. 1984; Ivancevich, 1976;
Mean
Corractad
Shaw, 1984; Smith etal., 1986).
(.472) (471)
d The benefits of more rigorous, standardized definitions of
task characteristics, such as those advanced by Wood (1986),
need to be recognized by goal researchers. The earlier review of
OS() goal-setting studies that examined task effects deaily demon-
.3- - strated the problems associated with inadequate conceptualiza-
Spaclficity/
Difficulty (N>S3) tions of and hypotheses about moderator effects. The coding of
study tasks for the meta-analysis has allowed us to examine the
2- - previously uncontrolled sources of variation in goal-setting
studies that were due to the task characteristic of cranplotity.
Research is now needed to focus on how goal effects vary as
a function of different types of complexity and the underiying
Low Modarata HiQh
processes by which goals affect performance on different types
of tasks.
Task Complaxity
For example, we could consider how goals aflfect perfbrmance
Figure 3. Goal effect as a function of task on complex psychomotor tasks. Much ofthe discussion about
complexity (separately by each set> the effects of goals on complex tasks is focused on cognitive
 TASK COMPII XITY 421

Table 3 In another area of selection research, tentative support has

Meta-Analysis ds for Task Comple.xity Subgroups, hy been found for the hypothesis that task complexity moderates
Quintiles, for All Studies Combined* the effectiveness of realistic job previews (RJPs) in reducing
tumover (McEvoy & Cascio, 1985). The RJPs were found to
Task complexity No. of be less effective in reducing tumover for entry-level nonman-
rating n studies d" agement jobs of low complexity than for more complex jobs.
1.0-2.0 2.702 27 .Ibll However, this result was based on a small number of studies for
2.25-2.75 2,710 25 4485 each level of task complexity, and the possibility of capitaliza-
3.0-3.25 2,082 20 4370 tion on chance could not be ruled out (McEvoy & Cascio, 1985,
3.5-5.0 4,234 28 .4697
p. 349).
5.25-7.0 2,455 25 .4173
There is an interesting complementarity between our find-
• Effects of goal specificity-difficulty and goal difficulty are combined. ings and those in the selection research area. Tests of cognitive
'' ds are meta-analytic corrected for measurement error.
abilities and RJPs are most effective in selecting for complex
jobs, in which goal setting is least effective, and least effective
for less complex jobs, in which goal setting is most effective.
processes, such as search, information processing, and strategy There is evidence that the effects of goal setting are mediated
development, which are typically required in the performance by strategy development—information processing and prob-
of complex decision tasks (e.g., Campbell, 1984; Wood et al., lem solving—on complex tasks (Wood et al.. 1986). In the fu-
1986). However, these cognitive processes may have less influ- ture, researchers need to consider the relative effects of cogni-
ence on the motor aspects of tasks in which performance re-
tive abilities, information sharing (as in RJPs and participation)
quires a highly programmed set of behaviors as well as goals
and goal setting, on strategy development.
that focus the person's attention on the outcomes to be
Our support for the situational specificity hypothesis has im-
achieved. In fact, without a set of well-learned and effective mo-
tor programs, the attentional demands of outcome goals ma\ plications for generalizing about the size of effects or productiv-
undermine a person's execution of complex motor activities. ity gains from goal setting across different types of tasks. The
Therefore, although the results would fit with our moderator average effect-size goals for all ofthe studies combined was d =
hypothesis (i.e., outcome goals would lead to lower performance .521, equivalent to a 10.39% increase in productivity (Mento et
on more complex tasks), the underlying processes by which al.. 1987). For tasks coded at the low, moderate, and high levels
goals affect performance on complex psychomotor tasks may be of complexity, the equivalent productivity increases are
quite different from those for more cognitive types of tasks. 12.15%, 9.12%, and 7.79'' , respectively.
One final implication of our results concems the validity gen-
eralization arguments that Schmidt and Hunter (1977) have de-
veloped in relation to selection processes, but more recently
have applied to other organization interventions, including goal
setting (Hunter & Schmidt, 1983). There are two aspects to the
Schmidt and Hunter arguments. Thefirstis the validity general-
ization thesis that observed effects (validity of selection tests,
performance effects of goals, etc.) generalize across a variety of
organizations, jobs, and tasks. The results reported here, and in
Mento et al. (1987), clearly support the thesis that the positive
performance effects of goal difficulty-specificit\ are highly gen-
eralizable.
The second aspect ofthe Schmidt and Hunter (1977) argu-
ments relates to the situational specificity hypothesis. That is,
differences in situations will be associated with differences in
the magnitude of effects. There is evidence that task complexity
may be an important moderator across a range of performance
determinants. For example. Hunter (198 3) found that job com-
plexity afTected the selection validities for tests of cognitive abil-
ities, with validities increasing with job complexity. This finding
has been replicated by Gutenberg, Arvey, Osbum. and Jean-
neret (1983), whose measure of job complexity was based on
selected dimensions from the Position Analysis Questionnaire
(PAQ). In both the Hunter and Gutenberg et al. studies, com-
plexity was defined as the level of information-processing and 10 2 0 2 25 •2 75 3 0 3 25 3 55 0 5 25-7 0
IN.271 I N . 251 IN.201 IN.2)1 IN.24)
problem-solving demands of the job. These task demands are
products of the coordinative and dynamic types of task com- Task Complexly
plexity defined by Wood (1986) and used to classify tasks in the Figure 4. Goal effect as a function of task complexity
present study. (combined studies) by quintiles.

I
422 R. WOOD, A. MENTO, AND E. LOCKE

References Locke, E. A., A Bryan, J, F, (1968). Grade goals as detcrminantt of

academic achievement. Journal qf General PsychtAogy 79,217-228.
Austin, J. T, A Bobko, P. (1984). The application of goal setting: Some Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N,, Saari, L. M., A Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal
setting and tuk performance: 1969-1990. Psychological Bulletin, 90,
boundary conditions and future research. Academy ofAfanagement
125-152.
Proceedings, 197-201.
Mabe, R A., A West, S, G. (1982). Vklidity of self-evaluation of ability:
Baumler, J. V. (1971). Defined criteria of performance in ofsanizational
A review and meU-analyns. Journal qf Applied Psychology, 67, 280-
coatiol. Administrative Science Quarterly 16, 340-348.
296.
Campbell. D. J. (1984). Tbe effect of goal contingent payment on tbe McEvoy, G. M., A Caado, W. F. (1985). Strategies for reducing em-
performance of a complex task. Personnel Psychology 37, 23-40. ployee turnover A meU-analysis. Journal ofApplied Psychology 70,
Chesney, A. (1986). An examination ofthe relation among goals, strate- 342-353.
gies, and performance: A simulation study. Unpublished doctoral dis- Mento, A. J., Steel, R. R, A Karren, R. J. (1987). A meta-analytic study
sertation. University of Maryland. ofthe effects ofgoal setting on task performance: 1966-) 984. Organi-
Reishman, E. A. (1975). Toward a taxonomy of hunum performance. zational Behavit>r and Human Decision Processes, 39, 52-83.
American Psychologist, 30, 1127-1149. Nayloi; J. C , A Ilgen, D. R. (1984). Goal-setting: A theoretical analysu
Froit, P. J , A Mahoney, T A. (1976). Goal setting and the usk process: of a motivational technology. In B. Staw A L. L. Cummings (Bis.).
I. An interactive influence on individual performance. Organiza- Research in organizational behavior {WcA. 6, pp. 95-140). Green-
tional Behavior and Human Petformance. 17, 328-350. wich, CT JAI Press.
Green, B. F., A Hall, J. A. (1984). QuantiUtive methods for literature Peterson, N. G., A Bownas, D. A. (1982). Skill, task structure and per-
reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 35, 37-53. formance acquisition. In M. D. Dunnette A E. A. Fleishman (Eds.),
Gutenbeis. R. L., Arvey, R. D., Osbum, H. G., A Jeanneret, P. R. Human performance and productivity (Vol. I, pp. 49-105). Hilhdak,
(1983). Moderating effects of decision-making/information-process- NJ: Ertbaum.
ing job dimensions on test validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, Pinder, C. (1984). Work motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Rosenthal, R. (1978). Combining results from independent studies.
68,602-608.
Psychological Bulletin, 85, 185-193.
Hackman, J. R. (1969). Toward understanding the role of tasks in be-
Schmidt, F L., A Huntei; J. E. (1977). Devekipment of a general solu-
havioral research. Acta Psychologica. 31, 97-128.
tion to the problem of validity generalization. Journal qf Applied Psy-
Hackman, J. R., A Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading,
chology, 62, 529-540.
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., A Peadman, K. (1982). Progress in valid-
Hubei; V. L. (1985). Effects of task difficulty, goal setting, and strategy ity generalization: Comments on Callender and Osbom and further
on performance of a heuristic task. Journal of Applied Psychology, developments. Journal (^AppliedPsychology, 67,835-845.
70,492-504. Shaw, K. N. (1984). A laboratory investigation ofthe relationships
Hunter, J. E. (1983). Test validation for 12,000 jobs: An application of among goals, strategies, and task performance. Unpublished doctoral
job classification and validity generalization to the General Aptitude dissertation. University of Maryland.
Test Battery (GATB) Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Smith, K. G., Locke, E. A., A Barry, D. (1986). Goal setting, planning
Employment and Training Administration, Division of Counseling and organizational performance: An experimental study Unpub-
and Test Development. lished manuscript. University of Maryland.
Huntei; J. E , & Schmidt, F. L. (1983). Quantifying the effects of psycho- Steel, R. R, A Ovalle, N. K. (1984). A review and meu-analysis of re-
logical interventions on employee job performance and work-force search on the relationship between behavioral intentions and em-
productivity. American Psychologist, 38.473-478. ployee tumover. Journal ofApplied Psychology 69,673-686.
Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., A Jackson, G. B. (1982). Afeta-analysis: Streufert, S., A Streufert, S. (1978). Behavior in the complex environ-
Cumulating research findings across studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. wen/. New York: Wiley.
Ivancevich, J. M. (1976). Effects of goal setting on performance and job Weick, K. E. (1965). Laboratory expedmenution with oiganizations.
satisfaction. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 61.605-612. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook cf organizations. Chicago: Rand-
McNaUy.
Jackson, S. E., & Zedeck, S. (1982). Explaining performance variability:
Wood, R. E. (1985, August). Task complexity and goal effects, ^vpa
Contributions of goal setting, task characteristics, and evaluative con-
presented at the meeting ofthe National Academy of Management,
texts. Journal of Applied Psychology 67,759-768.
San Diego, CA.
Latham, G. P., Mitchell, T. R., A Dossett, D. L. (1978). The importance Wood, R. E. (1986). Task complexity: Definition ofthe construct. Or-
of participative goal setting and anticipated rewards on goal difficulty ganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37,60-82.
and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 6i, 163-171. Wood, R. E., Locke, E. A., A Smith, K. (1986). Goal setting and strategy
Locke, E. A. (1967). Relationship of goal level to perfonnance levtl. effects on complex tasks: A theoretical analysis. Unpublished manu-
Psychological Reports, 20, 1068. script. University of New South Wales, New South VSUes, Australia.
 TASK COMPLEXITY 423

Appendix

References for the Meta Analysis

The letters at the end of each reference mean the following: Correla- goal attainability assumption. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68. 2 0 -
ti(»al studies are designated Cand experimental articles E. Those arti- 30. D, E
cles involving goal difficulty have a D and those comparing specific, Garland, H. (1984a, August). A cognitive mediation theory of task goals
difficult goals with do-best goals are designated SD. and human performance. Paper presented at the 44th Annual Con-
vention ofthe Academy of Management, Boston. D, E
Andrews, F. M., A Farris, G. F. (1972). Time pressure and performance Garland, H. (1984b). Relation of effort-performance expectancy to per-
of scientists and engineers: A five year panel study. Organizational formance in goal-setting experimente. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 185-200. C, D 69. 79-84. SD, E
Bandura, A., A Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy Hall, D. T, & Foster, L. W. (1977). A psychological success cycle and
mechanisms goveming the motivational effects of goal systems. Jour- goal setting: Goals, performance, and attitudes. Academy ofAfanage-
nal of Personality and Social Psychdogy, 45, 1017-1028. SD, E ment Journal. 20. 282-290. D, C
Bandura, A., A Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self- Hall, D. T, & Hall, F S. (1976). The relationship between goals, perfor-
efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proxinud self-motivation. mance, success, self-image, and involvement under different oigani-
Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 41, 586-598. SD, E zational climates. Joumal of Vocational Behavior, 9. 267-278. D, C
Basset, G. A. (1979). A study of the effecte of task goal and schedule Hamner, W. C , & Hamett, D. L. (1974). Goal-setting, performance
choice on work performance. Organizational Behavior and Human and satisfaction in an interdependent task. Organizational Behavior
Performance. 24. 202-227. D, E and Human Performance. 12. 217-230. D, E
Bavelas, J. B., A Lee, E. S. (1978). Effecte of goal level on performance: Ivancevich, J. M. (1976). Effecte of goal setting on performance and job
A tradeoff of quantity and quality. Canadian Journal of Psychology. satisfaction. Journal ofApplied Psychology. 61. 605-612. SD, E
i Z 219-240. D,E Ivancevich, J. M. (1977). Different goal-setting treatmente and their
Becker, L. J. (1978). Joint effect of feedback and goal setting on perfor- effecte on performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management
mance: A field study of residential energy conservation. Journal of Journal. 20, 406-419. SD, C
Applied Psychdogy, 63.428-433. D, E Ivancevich, J. M. (1982). Subordinates' reactions to performance ap-
Blumenfeld, W. S., A Leidy, T. R. (1969). Effectiveness of goal setting praisal interviews: A test of feedback and goal'Setting techniques.
as a management device: Research note. Psychological Reports. 24. Journal ofApplied Psychology. 67, 581-587. SD, E
752.SD,C Ivaiicevich, J. M., & McMahon, J. T. (1977a). Black-white differences
Burke, R. J., A Wilcox, D. S. (1969). Characteristics of effective em- in a goal-setting program. Organizational Behavior and Human Per-
ployee performance review and development. Personnel Psychology. formance. 20. 287-300. D, C; SD, C
22, 291-305. SD,C Ivancevich, J. M., & McMahon, J. T. (1977b). Education as a moderator
Campbell, D. J. (1984). The effect of goal contingent payment on oi %oaH-xnin%cStc\i\tnes&. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 11. Si-
the performance of a complex task. Personnel Psychology. 3 7. 23-40. 94.D,C;SD,C
D,E Ivancevich, J. M., & McMahon, J. T. (1977c). A study of task-goal attri-
Campbell, D. J., A Ilgen, D. R. (1976). Additive effecte of task difficulty butes, higher order need strength, and performance. Academy of
and goal setting on subsequent task performance. Journal of Applied Afanagement Journal. 20, 552-563. D, C; SD, C
Psychology 61. 319-324. D, E Ivancevich, J. M., & McMahon, J. T. (1982). The effecte of goal setting,
Chesney, A. (1986). An examination ofthe relation among goals, strate- extemal feedback, and self-generated feedback on outcome variables:
gies, and performance: A simulation study. Unpublished doctoral dis- A field experiment. Academy ofAfanagement Journal. 25, 359-372.
sertation. University of Maryland. D, E SD,E
Dachler, H. P., A Mobley, W. H. (1973). Construct validation of an in- Jackson, S. E., & Zedeck, S. (1982). Explaining performance variability:
strumentality-expectancy-task-goal model of work motivation: Contributions of goal setting, task characteristics, and evaluative con-
Some theoretical boundary conditions [Monograph]. Journal ofAp- texte. Journal ofApplied Psychology. 67. 759-768. D, E
plied Psychology, 58, 397-418. D, C Kaplan, R., A Rothkopf, E. Z. (1974). Instructional objectives as direc-
Dossett, D. U, Latham, G. P, A MitcheU, T R. (1979). The effecte of tions to leamers: Effect of passage length and amount of objective-
assigned versus participatively set goals, KR, and individual differ- relevant content. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66. 448-456.
ences when goal difficulty is held constant. J»umal of Applied Psy- SD,E
dmlogy 64,29l-29S.D,C Kim, J. S. (1984). Effect of behavior plus outcome goal setting and feed-
Dooett, D. L., Latham, G. P, A Saari, L. M. (1980). The impact of back on employee satisfaction and performance. Academy of Afan-
goal setting on survey retums. Academy ofAfanagement Journal, 23, agement Journal. 27, 139-149. SD, E
561-567. SD,E LaPorte, R. E., A Nath, R. (1976). Role of performance goals in prose
Erez, M. (1977). Feedback: A necessary condition for the goal setting- leaming. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 68, 260-264. D, E
performance relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 624- Latham, G. P., A Kinne, S. B. III. (1974). Improving job performance
627. D , C through training in goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology 59,
Frost, P. J., & Mahoney, T. A. (1976). Goal setting and the task process: 187-191. SD,E
1. An interactive influence on individual performance. Organiza- Latham, G. P., A Locke, E. A. (1975). Increa^ng productivity with de-
tional Behavior and Human Performance, 17, 328-350. SD, E creasing time limits: A field replication of Parkinson's Law. Journal
Garland, H. (1982). Goal levels and task performance: A compelling of Applied Psychology, 60, 524-526. SD, E
replication of lome compelling results. Journal of Applied Psychol- Latham, G. P, A Marshall, H. A. (1982). The effecte of self-set, partici-
ogy 67,245-248. D, E patively set, and assigned goals on the performance of govemment
Garland, H. (1983). Influence of ability, assigned goals, and normative employees. Personnel Psychology, 35, 399-404. D, C
infomution on pcnonal goals and performance: A challenge tojthe Utham, G. R, MitcheU, T R., & Dossett, D. L. (1978). The importance

I
424 R. WOOD, A. MENTO, AND E. LOCKE

of participative goal setting and anticipated rewards on goal difficulty ment on increasing metal recycling. Journal of Applied Psychology
and job perfonnance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 163-171. 67, 377-379. SD,E
D,C Mento, A. J., Cartledge, N. D., A Locke, E. A. (1980). Maryland vs.
Utham, G. R, A Saari, L. M. (1979a). The effects of holding goal Michigan vs. Minnesota: Another kx>k at the relationship of expeo-
difficulty constant on assigned and participatively set goals. Academy tancy and goal difficulty to task performance. Organizatimuil Behav-
(^Aianagement Journal, 22, 163-168. SD, E ior and Human Performtmce, 25,419-440. D, E
Utham, G. P, A Saari, L. M. (1979b), The imporUnce of supportive Mossholder, K. W. (1980). Effecte of extemaUy mediated goal setting
relationships in goal setting. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 64, 151- on intrinsic motivation: A laboratory experiment. Journal cf Applied
156.D,C;SD,E Psychology 65, 202-210. SD, E
Utham, G. P., & Steel, T. P (1983). The motivational effecte of partici- Motowidlo, S., Loehi; V., A Dunnette, M. D. (1978). A laboratory study
pative versus assigned goal setting on performance. Academy ofAfan- ofthe effecte of goal specificity on the relationship between probabil-
agement Journal, 26,406-417. D, C ity of success and performance. Journal cf Applied Psychology 23,
Utham, G. P, & Yukl, G. A. (1976). The effecte of assigned and partici- 172-179. D,E
pative goal setting on performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Mowen, J. C , Middlemist, R. D., & Luther, D. (1981). Joint effects of
Applied Psychology, 6/. 166-171. SD, E assigned goal level and incentive structure on task performance: A
Locke, E. A. (1966). The relationship of intentions to level of perfor- laboratory study. Journal qf Applied Psychology, 66, 598-603. D, E
mance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 50. 60-66. D, E Nemeroff, W F, A Cosentino, J. (1979). Utilizing feedback and goal
Locke, E. A. (1967). The motivational effecte of knowledge of resulte: setting to increase performance appraisal interviewer skiUs of manag-
Knowledge or goal-setting? Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 324- ers. Academy ofAfanagement Journal. 22, 566-576. SD, E
329. SD, E Oldham, G. R. (1976). The motivational strategies used by supervisors:
Locke, E. A. (1968). The effecte of knowledge of results, feedback in Relationships to effectiveness indicators. Organizational Behavior
relation to standards, and goals on reaction time performance. Amer- and Human Performance, 15,66-86. D, C
ican Journal of Psychology 81. 566-574. D, E Oigan, D. W. (1977). Intentional vs. arousal effecte of goal setting. Or-
Locke, E. A. (1982). Relation of goal level to performance with a short ganizational Behavior and Human Performance, 18, 377-389. D, E
work period and multiple goal levels. Journal of Applied Psychology. Peters, L. H., Chassie, M. B., Lindholm, H. R., O'Connor, E. J., A
67. 512-514. D,E Kline, C. R. (1982). The joint influence of situational constrainte and
Locke, E. A., & Bryan, J. F. (1966). Cognitive aspecte of psychomotor goal setting on perfonnance and affective outcomes. Journal ofAfan-
pefformance: The effects of performance goals on level of perfor- agement. 8, 7-20. D, E
mance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 50,417-420. SD, E Pritchard, R. D., A Curtis, M. I. (1973). The influence of goal setting
Locke, E. A., A Bryan, J. F (1967). Performance goals as deteripinante and financial incentives on task performance. Organizational Behav-
of level of performance and boredom. Journal of Applied Psychology, ior and Hunum Performartce. 10, 175-183. D, E
51. I2O-13O.D,C.SD,E Rakestraw, T L. Jr., A Weiss, H. M. (1981). The interaction of social
Locke, E. A., & Bryan, J. F (1968). Grade goals as determinante of influence and task experience on goals, perfonnance, and perfor-
academic achievement, youma/o/Gen^ra/P5>c/io/o^, 79, 217-228. mance satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-
D,C mance. 27,126-lM. D.C
Locke, E. A., & Bryan, J. F. (1969). The directing function of goals in Ronan, W. W, Utham, G. P, & Kinne, S. B. (1973). Effecte of goal
task performance. Organizational Behavior arui Human Perfor- setting and supervision on worker behavior in an industrial situation.
mance. 4, 35-42. D, E; SD, E Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 302-307. SD, C
Locke, E. A., Bryan, J. F, A Kendall, L. M. (1968). Goals and intentions Rosswork, S. G. (1977). Goal setting: The effecte on an academic task
as mediators ofthe effecte of monetary incentives on behavior. Jour- with varying magnitudes of incentive. Journal of Educational Psy-
nal of Api^ied Psychology, 52. 104-121. D, C chology, 69,1\O-1\5.SD,E
Locke, E. A., Cartledge, N., & Knerr, C. (1970). Studies ofthe relation- Rothkopf, E. Z., A BiUington, M. J. (1975). A two-factor model ofthe
ship between satisfaction, goal setting and performance. Organiza- effect of goal-descriptive directions on leaming from text Journal of
tional Behavior and Human Perfonnance, 5, 135-158. D, C Educational Psychology 67, 192-204. D, E; SD, E
Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C , A Bobko, P. (1984). Effecte of self- Rothkopf, E. Z., A BiUington, M. J. (1979). Goal-guided leaming from
efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task performance. Jourruil of text: Inferring a descriptive processing model from inspection times
Applied Psychology, 69, 241-251. D, C utdcytmovcmenis. Journal of Educational Psychology 71,310-327.
Locke, E. A., Mento, A. J., A Katcher, B. (1978). The interaction of SD,E
ability and motivation in performance: An exploration ofthe mean- Rothkopf, E. Z., A Kaplan, R. (1972). Exploration ofthe effect of den-
ing of moderators. Personnel Psychology 31,269-280. SD, E sity and specificity of instructional objectives on leaming from text
Locke, E. A., A Shaw, K. N. (1984). Atkinson's inverse-U curve and Journal of Educational Psychology 63,295-302. SD, E
the missing cognitive variables. Psychological Reports, 55, 403-412. Sales, S. M. (1970). Stxne effecte of role oveHoad and role under-
D,C load. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5,592-608.
London, M., A Oldham, G. R. (1976). Effecte of varying goal types D,E
and incentive systems on performance and satisfaction. Academy of Shaw, K. N. (1984). A laboratory investigation cfthe relationships
Afanagement Journal, 19, 537-546. D, E among goals, strategies, and task performance. Unpublished doctoral
Masters, J. C , Furman, W., A Barden, R. C. (1977). Effecte ofachieve- dissertation, Univenity of Maryland, D, E
ment standards, tangible rewards and self-dispensed achievement Smith, K. G., Locke, E. A., A Barry, D. (1986). God setting, planning
evaluations on children's task mastery. Child Development, 48, 217- and organizational perfonnance: An experimental study Unpub-
224. D, E lished manuscript. University of Maryland. D, E
Matsui, T , Okada, A., A Kakuyama, T (1982). Influence of achieve- Steen, R. M. (1975). Task-goal attributes, achievement and supervi-
ment need on goal setting, performance, and feedback effectiveness. sory performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-
Journal of Applied Psychology 67,645-648. D. C mance, 13, 392-403. D, Q SD. C
McCaul, K. D., & Kcpp, J. X (1982). Effects of goal setting and commit- Strang, H. R., Uwrence, E C , A Fowtei; P. C (1978). Eficts of as-
 TASK COMPLEXITY 425

signed goal level and knowledge of results on arithmetic computa- White. S.I Mitcfiell. I R , & Bell. C. H..Jr.(lSi77).Goal setting evalu-
tion: A laboratory study. Journal ot \pplied Psvchoioay. 63. 29-39. ation apprehension, and social cues as determinante of job perfor-
D. E mance and job satisfaction in a simulated organization. Journal o/
Taylor, M S.. Locke, E. A., Lee, C . & Gist. M. (1984). Type A behavior Applied Fsn h,>l«i;\. 62. 665-673. SD. E
and facult) research productivity: What are the mechanisms? Organ- Wofford. J. C (1982) Experimental tests ofthe goal-encrgy-effort re-
izational Behavior and Human Performance. 34. 402-418. D,C quirement theory of work motivation. I'sychalnKii-al Reports. 50.
Terborg, J. R. (1976). The motivational componente of goal setting. 1259-1273. SD.E
Journal ofApplied Psychology. 61. 613-621. D. C Wood. R. E . & Locke. I A. (1 "iXA). The effects ol self-efficacy on aca-
Terborg, J R.,& Miller. H. E.(I978). Motivation, behavior and perfor- demic pcrtornuirhc Unpublished manuscript. University of New
mance: A closer examination of goal settingand monetary incentives. Soutfi VValL-s, New South Wales, Australia. D. C
Journal ofApplied Psychology. 63. 2*^-39. SD, E Yukl. G. A., & Latham, G P (1978). Interrelationships among em-
limstot, D. D., Bell, C. H., Jr., & Mitchell, T R. (1976) Effects of job ployee participation, individual differences, goal difficulty, goal ac-
enrichment and task goals on satisfaction and productivity: Implica- ceptance, goal instrumentality and performance. Pfr\i>nnei Psvchoi-
tions for job design. Journal of Applied Psychology: 61. 379-394. o^v. i / , 305-32.1 D. C
SD, E
Wexley, K N., & Nemeroff. W F. (1475). Effectiveness of positive rein- Received July 14, 1986
forcement and goal setting as methods of management development. Revision received February 5, 1987
Journal ofApplied Psychology. 60. 446-450. SD, \ Accepted December 12. 1986 •

I
View publication stats