A review of both laboratory and field studies on the effects of setting goals when performing a task found that in 90% of the studies, specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals. Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development. Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when the goals are specific and sufficiently challenging, the subjects have sufficient ability (and ability differences are controlled), feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment, the experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual. No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set. Need for achievement and self-esteem may be the most promising individual difference variables.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The situational interview is based on a systematic job analysis known as the critical-incident technique. The incidents are turned into interview questions in which job applicants are asked to indicate how they would behave in a given situation. Each answer is rated independently by two or more interviewers on a 5-point Likert-type scale. To facilitate objective scoring, job experts develop behavioral statements that are used as benchmarks or illustrations of 1, 3, and 5 answers. In Studies 1 and 2, the interobserver reliability coefficients for situational interviews of hourly workers (n = 49) and foremen (n = 63) were .76 and .79, respectively. Similarly, the internal consistencies of the interview questions for the hourly workers and foremen were .71 and .67, respectively. The respective concurrent validity coefficients were .46 and .30. In Study 3, predictive validity coefficients of .39 and .33 were obtained with women and blacks, respectively. All of these values were significant at the .05 level.The interview is used as a selection device by virtually every company in the United States. In fact, the Wall Street Journal (Lancaster, 1975) reported that a majority of companies have phased out pencil-andpaper tests and rely solely on the interview for making hiring decisions.The widespread use of the interview in favor of tests has occurred despite the fact that the interview is considered as much a test by government agencies as is a standardized test of intelligence or any other decision-making process that affects an individual's employment status in an organization. Nevertheless, companies appear to believe that the probability of being investigated by a government agency for wrongdoing in the areas of selection, promotion, layoff, and termination is reduced if only the interview is used as the decision-making instrument.