The relationship between managers’ goal-setting styles and subordinates’ goal commitment

IF 1.2 4区 管理学 Q3 ECONOMICS
Xander van Lill, G. Roodt, G. P. Bruin
{"title":"The relationship between managers’ goal-setting styles and subordinates’ goal commitment","authors":"Xander van Lill, G. Roodt, G. P. Bruin","doi":"10.4102/sajems.v23i1.3601","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Convincing employees to set aside their self-interests and commit to collective goals is essential for the effective functioning of organisations. It is critical that the impact of different managerial goal-setting styles, and the associated impressions of fair interpersonal treatment in the workplace, is understood from subordinates' perspective. This might clarify the psychological mechanisms involved in motivating subordinates to commit to organisational goals.\nAim: The primary aim of this article is to determine the relationship between managers' goalsetting styles and subordinates' goal commitment. The secondary aim is to determine whether this relationship is mediated by interactional justice.\nSetting: A total of 451 working adults completed an online or paper-and-pen survey.\nMethods: A mediator model was conducted in structural equation modelling with maximum likelihood estimation and Bollen-Stine bootstrapping, with 5000 bootstrap resamples, to test the hypotheses.\nResults: The perception that managers are deliberative had the greatest positive direct relationship with subordinates' goal commitment, followed by the directive style. Subordinates' perception of managers as complaisant, in turn, were unrelated to goal commitment (amotivational), whereas the perception of managers as hostile had a negative relationship with goal commitment. Informational justice, not interpersonal justice, emerged as the only mediating variable.\nConclusion: Managers should be encouraged to actively seek feedback from subordinates on their goal-setting styles. Managers can accordingly adapt their behaviour to effectively motivate subordinates to commit to organisational goals.","PeriodicalId":46244,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences","volume":"1 1","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/sajems.v23i1.3601","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: Convincing employees to set aside their self-interests and commit to collective goals is essential for the effective functioning of organisations. It is critical that the impact of different managerial goal-setting styles, and the associated impressions of fair interpersonal treatment in the workplace, is understood from subordinates' perspective. This might clarify the psychological mechanisms involved in motivating subordinates to commit to organisational goals. Aim: The primary aim of this article is to determine the relationship between managers' goalsetting styles and subordinates' goal commitment. The secondary aim is to determine whether this relationship is mediated by interactional justice. Setting: A total of 451 working adults completed an online or paper-and-pen survey. Methods: A mediator model was conducted in structural equation modelling with maximum likelihood estimation and Bollen-Stine bootstrapping, with 5000 bootstrap resamples, to test the hypotheses. Results: The perception that managers are deliberative had the greatest positive direct relationship with subordinates' goal commitment, followed by the directive style. Subordinates' perception of managers as complaisant, in turn, were unrelated to goal commitment (amotivational), whereas the perception of managers as hostile had a negative relationship with goal commitment. Informational justice, not interpersonal justice, emerged as the only mediating variable. Conclusion: Managers should be encouraged to actively seek feedback from subordinates on their goal-setting styles. Managers can accordingly adapt their behaviour to effectively motivate subordinates to commit to organisational goals.
管理者目标设定风格与下属目标承诺的关系
背景:说服员工抛开个人利益,致力于集体目标,对组织的有效运作至关重要。从下属的角度理解不同的管理目标设定风格的影响,以及与之相关的工作场所中公平人际待遇的印象,这是至关重要的。这可能会澄清激励下属致力于组织目标的心理机制。目的:本文的主要目的是确定管理者的目标设定风格与下属的目标承诺之间的关系。第二个目的是确定这种关系是否受到互动公正的调解。设置:共有451名在职成年人完成了一项在线或纸笔调查。方法:采用结构方程模型,采用极大似然估计和Bollen-Stine自举,采用5000个自举样本,建立一个中介模型来检验假设。结果:管理者审慎型感知与下属目标承诺的正向直接关系最大,其次是指令性风格。反过来,下属认为管理者是顺从的,与目标承诺(激励)无关,而认为管理者是敌对的,与目标承诺呈负相关。信息公平,而非人际公平,成为唯一的中介变量。结论:应鼓励管理者积极寻求下属对其目标设定风格的反馈。管理者可以相应地调整自己的行为,以有效地激励下属致力于组织目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
29
审稿时长
52 weeks
期刊介绍: The South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences (SAJEMS) is a leading South African-based publication for interdisciplinary research in the economic and management sciences. The journal publishes and disseminates high-quality academic articles that contribute to the better understanding of the interaction between economic, environmental and social perspectives as applicable to the broader management sciences in an African environment. The editorial board therefore invites authors to submit their research from areas such as economics, finance, accounting, human capital, marketing and other related disciplines that break down common intellectual silos and prepares a new path for debate on the operation and development of sustainable markets and organisations as relevant to the broader African context.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信