The impact of goal progress and individual differences on self‐regulation in training

Abstract

The present study examined how individuals in an organizational training program regulated both their performance goals and effort in response to goal–performance discrepancies (GPDs), as well as the impact of individual differences (goal orientation) on these processes. Four hundred and sixty‐two employees participating in a high‐fidelity training simulation for a pharmaceutical sales position were observed over the course of 10 days to examine how they altered both their goals and individual effort in response to performance feedback they received from the organization. Consistent with past research conducted outside of the workplace, the results indicated that both goal revision and effort expenditure were significantly related to the GPDs experienced by individuals such that individuals receiving feedback that they were performing below their goal were likely to both set less challenging future goals and exert more effort. Results also suggested that this relationship was moderated by the employee's learning goal orientation (LGO) and performance‐avoid goal orientation. Individuals with a strong LGO were more likely to address GPDs by increasing effort, whereas those with a strong performance‐avoid orientation tended to utilize goal revision to address their GPDs. Theoretical and applied implications of these findings and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Looking forward or backward: A temporal lens to disentangle adaptive and maladaptive reactions to daily goal-performance discrepancy.

“…Daily GPD signals that employees fail to achieve satisfactory work goal progress, and actions are needed to reduce the discrepancy (Converse et al, 2010;Donovan et al, 2018). Even when employees leave work physically, they may not necessarily detach from the unattained work goals cognitively (Syrek & Antoni, 2014;Syrek et al, 2017).…”

“…Since these two seemly paradoxical predictions have received empirical support respectively (e.g., Converse et al, 2010; Donovan et al, 2018; Jones et al, 2009; Kernan & Lord, 1990; Shepherd et al, 2011), it remains unclear when and why GPD may trigger distinct reactions. Our research seeks to solve this paradox by examining the adaptive and maladaptive feedback loops (Maruyama, 1963) simultaneously and identifying contingencies that bound these two cycles.…”

“…Second, we also make an important advancement to the goal regulation literature by highlighting the influential roles of after-work thinking processes (anticipatory thinking and rumination) in linking goal-pursuing episodes across workdays. Since previous goal-performance research findings are primarily obtained from lab or classroom simulation settings (e.g., Converse et al, 2010; Kernan & Lord, 1990) or between-person field studies (e.g., Donovan et al, 2018; Jones et al, 2009; Shepherd et al, 2011), we have limited understanding of how the day-to-day work goal-pursuit dynamics unfold, especially via employee after-work cognitions (cf. after-work goal-oriented behaviors; Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007).…”

Importance of Goal and Feedback Orientation in Determining Feedback Effectiveness

“…The way students interact with feedback is also influenced by their goal orientation. It influences the way they respond to negative feedback (e.g., VandeWalle et al, 2001;Dahling & Ruppel, 2016;Donovan et al, 2018) as well as the extent to which they seek feedback. The view that students are active seekers of feedback is fairly new to the literature in higher education (c.f.…”

The future of feedback: Motivating performance improvement through future-focused feedback

“…Such evaluations are directly relevant to organizational goals, including employee motivation, positive supervisor-supervisee relations, and effective problem solving. Assessing subsequent behavior change and job performance is both important and complicated for evaluating feedback effectiveness: Seeing intentions through to fruition depends on many factors, including individual differences in selfregulation [66,67] and factors beyond people's control, such as competing commitments, limited resources, and changing priorities [68][69][70][71]. Nevertheless, the ultimate proof of futurefocused feedback will lie in performance improvement itself.…”