A Study of the Impact of Management by Objectives on Perceived Need Satisfaction

Ivancevich, John M.; Donnelly, James H.; Lyon, Herbert L.

doi:10.1109/emr.1976.4306530

Cited by 11 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first involves investigating the different dimensions of feedback or investigating how a feedback system should be designed along those dimensions so that it can have optimal effect (Beeson, 1973;Berman, Fraser, & Theious, 1970;Chobbar & Wallin, 1984;Christian, 1972;Dockstader et al, 1977;Fisher, 1979;Greller, 1975Greller, , 1980Greller & Herold, 1975Griswold, 1970;Ivancevich, Donnelly, & Lyon, 1970;Lair & Smith, 1970;Longstreth, 1970;Merrill, 1970;Payne &Hauty, 1955;Pritchard, Montagno, & Moore, 1978;Robinson & Kulp, 1970;Sassenwrath & Younge, 1969;Simpson, 1972;Weidner, 1968;Wike, 1970).…”

Section: Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 98%

Effects of group feedback, goal setting, and incentives on organizational productivity.

Pritchard

Jones²,

Roth³

et al. 1988

Journal of Applied Psychology

292

158

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While industrial and organizational psychologists have been concerned about the national problem of increasing productivity, most research has focused on simple jobs with the individual as the unit of analysis. Most jobs are more complex and, because of the interdependencies in the work, require group-level interventions and more complex measures of performance or productivity. This research presents a new method of measuring productivity, the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMES), and uses measures from this approach as a foundation for group-based feedback, goal setting, and incentives. The experimental design consisted of a baseline period of 8 to 9 months, followed by a 5-month period of feedback based on the ProMES. Goal setting was then added to feedback for 5 months. Finally, incentives in the form of time off from work were added to feedback and goal setting for another 5 months. Results indicated that group-level feedback increased productivity an average of 50% over baseline, group goal setting increased productivity 75% over baseline, and group incentives increased productivity 76% over baseline. Control group data showed no or only a slight increase in productivity over the same period, and level of personnel either stayed the same or decreased. In addition, work attitudes such as job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and morale were as good or better following the interventions. Issues pertaining to group-based interventions are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 98%

Effects of group feedback, goal setting, and incentives on organizational productivity.

Pritchard

Jones²,

Roth³

et al. 1988

Journal of Applied Psychology

292

158

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For feedback to serve as an effective reinforcer, it has been suggested that its frequency has to correlate positively with that of correct responses on a performance task (Anderson, Kulhavy, & Andre, 1971;Hundal, 1969;Cook, 1968, Ivancevich, Donnelly, & Lyon, 1970. So the more frequently feedback is provided, the more accurate participants generally seem to be in performing a given task (Anderson et al, 1971;Cook, 1968;Ivancevich et al, 1970;Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Feedback on Face‐Matching Accuracy

Alenezi

Bindemann

2013

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record. EnquiriesFor any further enquiries regarding the licence status of this document, please contact: researchsupport@kent.ac.uk If you believe this document infringes copyright then please contact the KAR admin team with the take-down information provided at http://kar.kent.ac.uk/contact.html Alenezi, Hamood and Bindemann, Markus (2013) Citation for published version AbstractIn face matching, observers have to decide if two photographs depict the same person or different people. This is a remarkably difficult task so the current study investigated whether it can be improved when observers receive feedback for their performance. In five experiments, observersÕ initial matching performance was recorded before feedback for their accuracy was administered across three blocks. Improvements were then assessed with faces that had been seen previously with or without feedback and with completely new, previously unseen faces. In all experiments, feedback failed to improve face-matching accuracy. However, trial-by-trial feedback helped to maintain accuracy at baseline level after feedback was withdrawn again, even with new faces (Experiments 1 to 3). By contrast, when no feedback was given throughout the experiment (Experiments 1 to 3) or when outcome feedback was administered at the end of blocks (Experiments 4 and 5), a continuous decline in matching accuracy was found, whereby observers found it increasingly difficult to tell different facial identities apart. A sixth experiment showed that this decline in accuracy continues throughout when the matching task is prolonged substantially. Together, these findings indicate that observers find it increasingly difficult to differentiate faces in matching tasks over time, but trial-by-trial feedback can help to maintain accuracy. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.3

show abstract

“…The result is that the literatu re is filled with many studies dealing with only a single dimension of feedback. Some examples of the m ore popular dimensions looked at are immediate vs. delayed feedback (Beeson , 1973;Christian , 1972;Robinson & KuIp, 1970;Sassenwyath & Younge, 1969), knowledge of right vs. wrong responses (Longstreth 1970 ;Merrill, 1970 ;W~ke, 1970), verba l vs. nonverbal (Lair & Smith, 1970;Simpson , 1972), personal vs. impersonal (Weidner , 1968), accurate vs. inaccurate (Griswold, 1970), information content (Berman , Fraser , & T heious, 1970), and frequency (Ivancevich , Donnelly, & Lyon , 1970).…”

Section: Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%