Participative Versus Assigned Production Standard Setting in a

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND ERGONOMICS 1999, VOL. 5, NO. 3, 417-430
Participative Versus Assigned Production
Standard Setting in a Repetitive Industrial Task:
A Strategy for Improving W orker Productivity
Biman Das
Dalhousie University, Canada
Ashraf A. Shikdar
Sultan Qaboos University, Oman
The participative standard w ith feedback co n d ition was superior to the assigned
difficu lt (140% o f norm al) standard with feedback co n d ition in terms o f w orker
productivity. The percentage increase in w orker productivity with the participative
standard and feedback co n d ition was 46% , w hereas the increase in the assig­
ned d ifficu lt standard w ith feedback was 23%, com pared to the control group
(no standard, no feedback). W orker productivity also improved sig n ifica n tly as
a result o f assigning a norm al (100%) production standard w ith feedback,
com pared to the control group, and the increase was 12%. The participative
standard with feedback condition emerges as the optimum strategy for im proving
w orker productivity in a repetitive industrial production task.
participative standard
assigned standard
repetitive industrial task
perform ance feedback
w orker productivity
1. INTRODUCTION
R epetitive p ro d u ctio n tasks are often considered boring, m o n o to n o u s,
fatiguing, and unm otivating. This in tu rn has detrim ental effects on
w orker productivity, and is considered a m ajo r p roblem o f w orker
The research was funded by the Social Sciences and Hum anities Research Council
o f C anada (SSH RC G rants 410-87-0976 and 410-88-0990).
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Biman Das, D epartm ent
o f Industrial Engineering, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N ova Scotia, Canada. E-mail< B im an.D as@ dal.ca> .
418
B. DAS AND A.A. SH1KDAR
productivity im provem ent in industry. C onsequently, it is o f u tm o st
im portance to apply suitable strategy to im prove w orker p roductivity
especially in repetitive industrial tasks.
G oal or stan d ard setting is believed to m otivate o p erato rs in task
perform ance th ro u g h directing atten tio n , m obilizing energy expenditure,
and prolonging effort. The positive effects of goals on worker perform ance
have been well established. R esearch studies have dem o n strated th a t
specific difficult goals lead to higher levels o f perform ance th a n doyour-best or easy goals (A wdia, Brow n, K ristof-B row n, & Locke, 1996;
Locke, 1968; L ocke & L ath am , 1984; Locke, Shaw, Saari, & L ath am ,
1981; Phillips & Gully, 1997). However, some recent studies have in­
dicated th at the typical positive effect o f a specific difficult goal assignment
m ay not hold for perform ance of novel, complex tasks (Earley, Connally,
& E kergren, 1989; G illiland & Landis, 1992; K nafer, A ckerm an,
M u rth a , D ugdale, & N elson, 1994). F eedback affects perform ance by
m otivating to adjust w ork o u tp u t, reinforcing response p a tte rn and
direction to w ard s goal. It has been fou n d effective in learning situations
and im proving individual’s m o tiv atio n in perform ance (A m m ons, 1956;
L eam on, 1974; W offord & G oodw in, 1990). F o r goal setting to be
effective, feedback is a necessary condition. Studies h ad show n th a t
specific goals w ith feedback were superior to goal setting or feedback
alone (Becker, 1978; D as, 1982; Erez, 1977).
T he goals could be either assigned or set participatively w ith the
w orker. R esearch studies have show n inconsistencies regarding the
superiority o f participative versus assigned goal setting (Ludwig & Geller,
1997). Som e studies have show n th a t participatively set goals lead to
b etter perform ance th a n assigned goals (L atham , M itchel, & D ossett,
1978; L ath am & Y ulk, 1975; Locke et al., 1981), whereas some other
studies have show n opposite results or effects (D ossett, L ath am ,
& M itchel, 1979; L ath am & Saari, 1979; L ath am & Steele, 1983).
W orker p articip atio n in decision m aking is the p rim ary m eans of
o b taining com m itm ent to productivity an d low ering resistance to change
(L atham , W inters, & Locke, 1994; Locke & L ath am , 1984). T here is
a need to explore fu rth er the effects of participative versus assigned goal
setting on w orker productivity. Such a study can co n trib u te to w ard s
developing a strategy for im proving w orker productivity especially in
repetitive p ro d u ctio n tasks.
In the past, considerable am o u n t o f research h ad been perform ed in
this area u n d er lab o rato ry settings, how ever, only a lim ited num ber of
studies were perform ed u n d er field or industrial settings (Becker, 1978,
PARTICIPATIVE VERSUS ASSIGNED STANDARD
419
Ivancevich & M cM ah o n , 1982; K im & H am ner, 1976; L ath am & K inne,
1974; L a th a m & Y ulk, 1975). The characteristics o f m any o f the p ast
research were (a) the task used were relatively simple or simulated, (b)
the goals or stand ard s were set arbitrarily or based on o p erato rs’ past
perform ance, (c) m easured standards based on w ork m easurem ent tech­
niques were seldom used, (d) difficult goals or stan d ard s were not
established or assigned in a consistent m anner across studies, and (e)
participative goals were set by employing different m ethods or approaches.
C onsequently, it was difficult to m ake com parative analysis am ong
studies. System atic controlled experim ents dealing w ith participative and
assigned stan d ard s were seldom perform ed w ith repetitive p ro d u ctio n
tasks using m easured stan d ard s in an ergonom ically designed w ork
environm ent.
In order to deal w ith the problem s just stated, a study was conducted
on a realistic, repetitive p ro d u ctio n task em ploying m easured stan d ard s
un d er an ergonom ic w orking situation in a university m achine shop
environm ent (D as & Shikdar, 1989, 1990). The research results revealed
th a t w orker produ ctiv ity im proved significantly as a consequence o f the
provision o f participative stan d ard w ith feedback and the assignm ent of
a difficult stan d ard o f 140% o f no rm al w ith feedback. H ow ever,
o p erato r perform ance un d er participative stan d ard with feedback was
fo u n d significantly less or inferior th a n the assigned difficult stan d ard of
140% o f norm al w ith feedback. The lim itations o f the study or research
results m ust be recognized. T he particip an ts o f the study were university
students and the task was perform ed for the d u ratio n o f 1 h r only.
T herefore, the study did n o t represent a real life or industrial w ork
situation, w here the em ployees are engaged for an 8-hr w ork day and
w orking for a living or pay.
It is necessary to validate the aforem entioned research results in
industry, w here w orkers are engaged in perform ing industrial tasks
un d er real life w orking conditions. It is believed th a t the results from
such a study will be m eaningful and can be generalized or applied in
a real w orld w ork situation. T he objectives o f this investigation were to
(a) study the effect o f participative versus assigned stan d ard s w ith
feedback on w orker productivity in a repetitive industrial p ro d u ctio n
task, perform ed in an ergonom ically designed w ork environm ent and
using a m easured stan d ard , (b) develop a strategy based on the research
results (a) to im prove w orker productivity especially in a repetitive
industrial task, and (c) com pare the results o f the industrial study w ith
the results o f the la b o ra to ry study in a similar task situation.
420
B. DAS AND A.A. SHIKDAR
2. EXPERIMENTAL METHOD USED IN INDUSTRY
A large fish processing p lan t was selected for the conduct o f the
experimental research. The experimental m ethod was designed with a view
to cause m inim um d isruption to the n o rm al industrial p ro d u ctio n w ork
and thus minimize economic or production difficulty to the com pany. The
details o f the experim ental m eth o d were described elsewhere (Shikdar,
1991), only the essentials relevant to the present investigation are
highlighted in this section.
2.1. Task
T he repetitive p ro d u ctio n task was a fish trim m ing o p eratio n (F igure 1).
It involved trim m ing and sorting fish fillets into different p ro d u ct sizes.
R egular trim m ing knives were used for the trim m ing o p eratio n . T he
task m ethod was standardized, so th a t all the operators w ould be able to
p erfo rm the task follow ing the sam e procedure. A n o p erato r in stru ctio n
Conveyor Belts
Figure 1. Fish trimm ing workplace layout. All dimensions are in centim eters.
PARTICIPATIVE VERSUS ASSIGNED STANDARD
421
sheet o f the standardized task m ethod th at dealt with left hand and right
h an d operations was provided at each w orkstation.
2.2. Production Standards
T he required m o tio n s to p erform the task were determ ined th ro u g h
m ethods-tim e-m easurem ent (M TM ) and ergonom ics analysis. T he norm al
p ro d u ctio n tim e/stan d ard to process a p an o f fish fillets (20 lb [9 kg]),
w as determ ined th ro u g h M T M , and a stopw atch tim e study was
perform ed to check th e accuracy o f the M T M standard. The stan d ard
tim e was calculated using the form ula:
stan d ard tim e = no rm al time (1 + allow ance in percentage)
(1)
A 17% allow ance, com prising o f 7% for unavoidable delays, 5% for
fatigue, and 5% for personal needs was added, tak in g due consideration
o f the wet w orking conditions.
The norm al (100% ) production was calculated in term s o f the num ber
o f p o u n d s (lbs) o f fillets to be processed per hour. F o r exam ple, norm al
tim e to process one p an o f 20 lbs o f fillets = 4.5 m in, stan d ard tim e
= 4.5 (1 + 0.17) = 5.27 m in, no rm al (100% ) p ro d u ctio n stan d ard
= (20/5.27) x 60 = 227.70 lb s/h r (102.50 kg/hr). F o r the pu rp o se of
this study, the difficult o r h ard p ro d u ctio n stan d ard was determ ined on
the basis o f 140% o f the norm al stan d ard (norm al stan d ard x 1.4), as
established earlier from a la b o ra to ry study (D as & Shikdar, 1990).
The p articip atio n stan d ard was set by each individual o p erato r in
con su ltatio n w ith the experim enter. T he o p erato r was asked to set
a stan d ard above 100% o f norm al th a t he or she considered challenging
and w ould like to attem pt. E ach stan d ard was presented on a special
feedback card for each individual o p erato r in term s o f p o unds p er h o u r
(lbs/hr) against the standard.
2.3. Performance Feedback
A special feedback card was p rep ared for each o p erato r who received
feedback o f perform ance results. F eedback was provided in term s of
p ro d u ctio n o u tp u t (lbs/hr) and perform ance (% o f stan d ard achieved
every 2 hrs). T he perform ance for each w orking day was recorded on
the card in graphical form for easy visualization (Figure 2).
422
B. DAS AND A.A. SHIKDAR
Figure 2. Perform ance feedback card, showing percentage of production standard
achieved by working day.
2.4. Worker Productivity Measure
W o rk er prod u ctiv ity in term s o f quality o u tp u t (lbs/hr, fillet trim m ed)
and perform ance (% o f n o rm al stan d ard achieved) was m easured every
2 h r s. T he full d ay ’s o u tp u t was converted to perform ance in percentage
for subsequent statistical analysis.
2.5. Work Environment
T he physical w ork environm ent with regard to tem perature, humidity, and
illum ination was considered w ithin norm al level (Sanders & M cC orm ick,
1993). T he tem p eratu re was 20 °C, relative hum idity 50% , and lighting
2000 lx on the trim table. D ue to wet conditions the p articip an ts w ore
full length aprons and special boots, covering up to the knees, and
perform ed the task standing on a platform . T he particip an ts used ear
plugs as the so und level was above 85 dBA. C o n tinuous w ater supply
was provided for washing hands or fillets, if required. Overall, the physical
w orking conditions were satisfactory, given the n atu re o f th e w ork.
2.6. Participants
T he p articip an ts o f the study were regular em ployees o f the plant.
T hirty-tw o o p erato rs (trim m ers) were selected on a v o luntary basis for
PARTICIPATIVE VERSUS ASSIGNED STANDARD
423
the experim ental research. T he criteria o f screening were based on the
p articip an ts having at least 6 m o n th s on the jo b o r w ork experience, at
least seventh grade education, and did n o t p lan to q uit the jo b w ithin
one year. They were given training for one day to fam iliarize w ith the
standardized m eth o d o f task perform ance. The particip an ts perform ed
the sam e ta sk in th e experim ental sessions un d er specific experim ental
conditions for 10 days w ithin a 10-m onth period.
2.7. Experimental Design
T he selected 32 p articip an ts were assigned random ly into four groups
and the fo u r experim ental conditions were random ly assigned to the
groups. T he experim ental conditions and assignm ent o f groups to these
conditions are presented in T able 1. The experim ental conditions for
each group were explained to its m em bers. The p articip an ts o f each
group perform ed one train in g and 10 experim ental sessions, each session
being a full d ay ’s w ork, over a 10-m onth period. O nly one session was
held on one day for only one group and the sessions were assigned at
ran d o m . In every session the particip an ts o f the group were rem inded
ab o u t their experim ental condition. The participants o f G ro u p 1 (control
group) were sim ply asked to do their best. All the p articip an ts were
asked n o t to discuss their experim ents and results w ith each other.
TABLE 1.
Characteristics of the Experim ental Groups
Group Number (Characteristics)
1 (Control)
Production Standard (PS)
Performance Feedback (PF)
No PS
No PF
2 (Assigned)
PS: 100% of normal
3 (Assigned)
PS: 140% of normal
PF
PF
PS: Participative
PF
4 (Participative)
3. RESULTS
T he p ro d u ctio n o u tp u t d a ta were collected in term s o f percentage o f the
n o rm al stan d ard for statistical analysis. T he d a ta were analysed th ro u g h
the use o f the Statistical A nalysis System (SAS) com puter p ro g ram
(R ay, 1982). A nalysis o f variance (A N O Y A ), analysis o f covariance
(A N O C O V A ), and S tudent N ew m an-K uel’s (SN K ) range test were
perform ed for the analysis.
424
B. DAS AND A.A. SHIKDAR
The results o f the A N O V A (Table 2) showed th a t differences am ong
the fo u r groups were highly significant (F = 4.61, p < .01) in term s of
p ro d u ctio n o u tp u t. It w as believed the initial or inherent ability o f the
p articip an ts m ight have conditioned the outcom e o f the experim ental
results. T o equate this individual variation am ong the p articip an ts o f the
groups, an analysis o f covariance was perform ed on the d a ta using the
train in g d a ta as the covariate. T hus an attem p t was m ade to achieve
statistical co n tro l o f the errors by the rem oval o f the influence o f the
individual differences. T he results o f the A N O C O V A (Table 3) show ed
the differences betw een th e groups were highly significant (F — 6.08,
p < .01), confirm ing the results o f A N O V A .
TABLE 2.
Analysis
of
Variance
(ANOVA)
of
W orker
Production
Output Data
Source
df
MS
F
PR > F
r2
4.61
.01
.33
3
1592.30
Errors
28
345.54
Total
31
Groups
Notes. PR > F— probability that a random F value would be greater than or
equal to the observed value:; r 2— coefficient of determination.
TABLE 3. Analysis of Covariance (ANOCOVA) of Worker Production
Output Data
Source
df
MS
F
PR > F
Groups
3
4862.89
6.08
.01
Covariate
1
2480.83
9.31
.01
Errors
27
266.45
Total
31
r2
.50
Notes. PR > F— probability that a random F value would be greater than or
equal to the observed value; r 2— coefficient of determination.
TABLE 4.
Percentage Increase or D ecrease in Perform ance as a Consequence
of the Experim ental Conditions
Comparison Between Groups
Increase in Performance (%)
2 (assigned normal) versus 1 (control)
12.07
3 (assigned hard) versus 1 (control)
23.06
3 (assigned hard) versus 2 (assigned normal)
4 (participative) versus 1 (control)
4 (participative) versus 3 (assigned hard)
9.80
45.60
18.52
PARTICIPATIVE VERSUS ASSIGNED STANDARD
425
T he adjusted m eans of p ro d u ctio n o u tp u t o f each group were
calculated on the basis o f A N O C O V A . T he percentage increase or
decrease in perform ance is presented in T able 4. F igure 3 d raw n w ith
the adjusted m eans shows the p ro d u ctio n o u tp u t o f the groups by day.
T he tren d in perform ance o f each group can be visualised from this
figure. T he adjusted m eans were used for the subsequent S N K range
TABLE 5.
Student Newman-Kuel’s (SNK) Range Test for Worker Production Output Data
Groups and Differences in Adjusted Means Between Groupsa
Groups
1
3
1
(Control)
2
(PS: 100% + PF)
(PS: 140% + PF)
—
8.87**
16.94**
33.50**
8.07*
24.63**
15.56**
2
3
4
4
(PS: Participative 4- PF)
—
—
Notes, a— groups in the order of increasing differences in adjusted means (production output,
% of normal), *— p < .05 (significant), **— p < .01 (highly significant); adjusted production output for
Group 1 (Control) = 73.63% of normal production; PS— Production Standard, PF— Performance
Feedback.
120
cz
§
100
CO
TC
D
g
fcz 80
CD
CD
CD
Q_
.—
60
CO
Q_
ID
O
CD
O
40
|
20
O
■0O
01
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
Experimental Days
]
|
Group 1 (Control)
f
Group 3 (PS: 140% + PF)
Group 2 (PS: 100% + PF)
|
Group 4 (PS: Participative + PF)
Figure 3. Production output in percentage of adjusted means of experim ental groups
by working day. Notes. PS— P roduction Standard, PF— Perform ance Feedback.
426
B. DAS AND A.A. SHIKDAR
test for com parative analysis o f the groups. The results o f th e S N K
range test are presented in T able 5.
3.1. Assigned Production Standards
T he n o rm al stan d ard (100% ) was used for com parison w ith the difficult
stan d ard (140% ). A com parison betw een G ro u p s 2 (100% of n o rm al
stan d ard and feedback) and 1 (control) showed th a t the provision o f an
assigned n o rm al stan d ard im proved w orker perform ance significantly
(p < .01). In the la b o ra to ry study no significant difference was found
betw een these conditions (D as & Shikdar, 1989, 1990). T he provision of
a n orm al p ro d u ctio n stan d ard (100% of norm al) along w ith feedback in
industry was b etter th a n no stan d ard and no feedback or, simply,
a do-your-best stan d ard .
A fu rth er im provem ent (p < .05) in w orker productivity was fou n d
w hen G ro u p 3 (assigned 140% o f norm al stan d ard and feedback) was
com pared w ith G ro u p 2. T he provision o f an assigned difficult or h ard
sta n d a rd and feedback h ad a significant positive effect on w orker
perform ance. This result was consistent w ith the result o f the lab o rato ry
study (D as & S hikdar, 1989, 1990). All the particip an ts accepted the
difficult stan d ard . P robably, they fou n d the jo b challenging and were
m otivated by the specific difficult stan d ard and feedback.
3.2. Participative Production Standard
T he p articip an ts o f the participative stan d ard group h ad set a stan d ard
o f ab o u t 120% o f n o rm al on the average. A com parison between
G ro u p s 4 (participative stan d ard and feedback) and 1 (control) revealed
th a t the provision o f a participative stan d ard w ith feedback significantly
im proved w orker perform ance. A com parison between G ro u p s 4 and 3
show ed th a t th e p ro d u ctio n o u tp u t o f the participative stan d ard group
w as significantly b etter (p < .01) th a n th e assigned difficult stan d ard
group. Stated otherw ise, the provision o f a participative stan d ard w ith
feedback led to b etter perform ance th an an assigned difficult stan d ard
o f 140% o f n o rm al w ith feedback. T he result was co n trary to the
la b o ra to ry study in w hich the assigned h ard stan d ard o f 140% o f
n orm al w ith feedback was significantly b etter th a n the participative
stan d ard w ith feedback in term s o f p ro d u ctio n o u tp u t (D as & Shikdar,
1989, 1990). A lthough the participative stan d ard was set at a m uch
PARTICIPATIVE VERSUS ASSIGNED STANDARD
427
low er level (on the average) th a n the assigned difficult stan d ard , the
w orker p ro d u ctio n o u tp u t was m uch higher. This indicated th a t in
industry, a particip ativ e stan d ard is preferred and the p articip an t
w orked h ard er to reach his or her own standard. F ro m this result it was
evident th a t a p articipative stan d ard w ith feedback was superior to
assigned difficult stan d ard (140% ) with feedback in industry.
4. DISCUSSION
It should be reiterated th a t this research was conducted in industry, as
opposed to a university lab o rato ry environm ent and the p articip an ts
were industrial w orkers instead o f college students. In the lab o rato ry
study, the participants perform ed the task for two one-hour w ork sessions
(one-hour training and one-hour experim ental work). In industry, the
participants perform ed training for one day and experim ental w ork
sessions for ten days. T he participants were industrial w orkers who were
engaged for 8 hrs o f w ork per day. Obviously, the results o f the industrial
study w ould be m ore realistic.
F ro m the analysis it was evident th a t the results o f the industrial
study were different from the lab o rato ry study in m any aspects (D as
& Shikdar, 1989, 1990). A n assigned norm al standard w ith feedback was
considered as a substantial and m eaningful change in th e w ork situation
to cause an im provem ent in w orker productivity in industry. T he finding
was contradictory to the laboratory study where no im provem ent in
w orker productivity occurred. It could be stated th a t setting a specific
p roduction standard (provided with feedback) in industry is better than
no stan d ard and no feedback.
T he stan d ard o f 140% o f norm al was considered difficult o r h ard as
no further im provem ent in w orker productivity was found as a result of
assigning 150% o f norm al in the lab o rato ry experim ent (D as & Shikdar,
1990; Shikdar & D as, 1992). W orker productivity further im proved
beyond 100% o f norm al stan d ard condition. This finding was consistent
w ith the lab o rato ry study. M any studies have reported th a t difficult goals
lead to better perform ance than easy goals or do-your-best goals (Locke
& L atham , 1984; Locke et al., 1981). The difficult goals in these studies
were based on o p erato rs’ past perform ance and n o t on a m easured
stan d ard as determ ined by a w ork m easurem ent.
P articipation in decision m aking has been considered as a m otivating
facto r in m anagem ent (L atham et al., 1994). It has been recom m ended as
428
B. DAS AND A.A. SHIKDAR
a m eans o f obtaining employee com m itm ent to organizational goal and
reducing resistance to change (Locke et al., 1981). A lthough participative
standard setting im proved perform ance in the laboratory study, the
perform ance was inferior to an assigned difficult standard o f 130% of
norm al with feedback. Perform ance further im proved with assigned difficult
stan d ard o f 140% o f norm al w ith feedback in the lab o rato ry setting
(D as & S hikdar, 1990). In industry, the results were reversed. The
perform ance o f the difficult stan d ard (140% o f norm al) group was
significantly inferior to the perform ance o f the participative stan d ard
group. T he perform ance in participative condition was 46% higher, and
in the assigned difficult stan d ard condition was 23% higher com pared
to the contro l condition. It should be m entioned here th a t in the
p articipative stan d ard co ndition the w orkers h ad set a stan d ard o f ab o u t
120% o f no rm al on the average, m uch below the h ard stan d ard of
140% o f norm al.
This finding clearly indicates the im portance o f participative standard
setting in industry. T he finding was also different from m any goal
setting studies th a t show ed no difference or was inferior in perform ance
w ith particip ativ e goal setting (D ossett et al., 1979; Ivancevich, 1982;
L a th a m et al., 1978; L ath am & Steele, 1983; L ocke et al., 1981).
5. CONCLUSIONS
T he follow ing conclusions were draw n on the basis o f th e results
o btained from the study perform ed in a field or industrial setting.
• P articipative stan d ard w ith feedback was superior to assigned h ard
stan d ard o f 140% o f norm al w ith feedback in term s o f w orker
productivity in a repetitive industrial production task. The im provem ents
were ab o u t 46% in the participative stan d ard condition an d ab o u t
23% in the assigned difficult standard condition com pared to the control
group. This was contrary to the result obtained in the lab o rato ry study.
• T he provision o f an assigned n o rm al p ro d u ctio n stan d ard w ith feed­
back also im proved w orker productivity significantly com pared to the
control group. T he im provem ent was ab o u t 12%. T he result was
co n tra ry to the earlier la b o ra to ry study. In general, stan d ard setting in
industry im proved w orker productivity.
• P articip atio n o f w orkers in setting stan d ard s should be considered an
im p o rta n t strategy to im prove w orker productivity in a repetitive
p ro d u ctio n task in industry, especially in a unionized environm ent.
PARTICIPATIVE VERSUS ASSIGNED STANDARD
429
6. FUTURE RESEARCH
T o realize m axim um benefit from p ro d u ctio n stan d ard s and feedback as
m ajor com ponents o f a jo b design approach, research is needed as follows:
• Participative stan d ard with feedback should be applied on a continuous
basis for a longer perio d to determ ine if the positive effect on w orker
p ro d u ctio n w ould be sustainable in a repetitive p ro d u ctio n task in
industry.
• T he possibility o f providing suitable m o n etary incentive to o b tain full
participation o f the w orkers on a sustained basis for improving w orker
pro d u ctiv ity in in d u stry should be ascertained.
• W o rk er acceptance and satisfaction as well as attitudes u n d er these
circum stances need to be assessed.
REFERENCES
Ammons, R.B. (1956). Effects of knowledge o f performance: A survey and tentative
theoretical form ulation. Journal o f General Psychology, 54, 179-299.
Awdia, G., Brown, K .G ., Kristof-Brown, A., & Locke, E.A. (1996). Relationship of
goals and microlevel w ork processes to perform ance on a m ultipath m anual task.
Journal o f Applied Psychology, 81(5), 483—4-97.
Becker, L J . (1978). Joint effects of feedback and goal setting on performance: A field
study o f residential energy conservation. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 73(4), 428-433.
D as, B. (1982). Effects o f production feedback and standards on w orker productivity in
a repetitive production task. H E Transactions, 14(1), 27-37.
Das, B., & Shikdar, A.A. (1989). Assigned and participative production standards and
feedback affecting w orker productivity in a repetitive m anufacturing task. Journal
o f Human Ergology, 18(\), 3-12.
Das, B., & Shikdar, A.A. (1990). Applying production standards and feedback to
im prove w orker productivity and satisfaction in a repetitive production task. H E
Transactions, 22(2), 124—132.
Dossett, D .L ., Latham , G.P., & Mitchel, T.R . (1979). Effects of assigned versus
participatively set goals on employee behaviour when difficulty is held constant.
Journal o f Applied Psychology, 64(3), 291-298.
Earley, P.C., Connally, T., & Ekergren, G. (1989). Goals, strategy development and task
performance: Some limits on the efficacy of goal setting. Journal o f Applied Psychology,
74, 24-33.
Erez, M . (1977). Feedback: A necessary condition for goal setting-performance relationships.
Journal o f Applied Psychology, 62(5), 624-627.
Gilliland, S.W., & Landis, R.S., (1992). Quality and quantity goals in a complex decision
task: Strategies and outcomes. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 77(5), 672-681.
Ivancevich, J.M . (1982). Subordinate reactions to performance appraisal interviews: A test
of feedback and goal setting techniques. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 67(5), 581-587.
430
B. DAS AND A.A. SHIKDAR
Ivancevich, J.M ., & M cM ahon, J.T. (1982). The effects of goal setting, external feedback
and self-generated feedback on outcome variables: A field experiment. Academy o f
Management Journal, 25(2), 359—372.
Kim, J.S., & H am ner, W .C. (1976). Effects of perform ance feedback and goal setting on
productivity and satisfaction in an organizational setting. Journal o f Applied
Psychology, 61(1), 48-57.
Knafer, R., Ackerman, P.L., M urtha, T.C., Dugdale, B„ & Nelson, L. (1994). G oal setting,
conditions of practice, and task performance: A resource allocation perspective.
Journal o f Applied Psychology, 79(6), 826-835.
Latham , G .P., & Kinne, S.C. (1974). Im proving performance through training in goal
setting. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 59(2), 187-191.
Latham , G.P., Mitchel, T .R ., & Dossett, D .L. (1978). Im portance of participative goal
setting and anticipated rewards on goal difficulty and job performance. Journal o f
Applied Psychology, 63(2), 163-171.
L atham , G .P., & Saari, L.M . (1979). The effects of holding goal difficulty constant on
assigned and participatively set goals. Academy o f Management Journal, 20, 163-168.
Latham , G .P., & Steele, T.P. (1983). The motivational effects of participation versus
assigned goal setting on performance. Academy o f Management Journal, 26(3), 406^117.
Latham , G.P., W inters, D.W ., & Locke, E.A. (1994). Cognitive and m otivation effects
o f participation: A m ediator study. Journal o f Organizational Behavior, 15, 49-63.
L atham , G .P., & Yulk, G.A. (1975). A review of research on the application of goal
setting in organization. Academy o f Management Journal, 18, 824—845.
Leam on, T.B. (1974). An investigation into the effects of knowledge o f results on
operator perform ance. Ergonomics, 15(5), 639-650.
Locke, E.A. (1968). Tow ard a theory o f task m otivation and incentives. Organizational
Behaviour and Human Performance, 3, 157-189.
Locke, E.A ., & Latham , G .P. (1984). Goal setting: A motivational technique that works!
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Locke, E.A., Shaw, K .N ., Saari, L.M ., & Latham , G.P. (1981). Goal setting and task
perform ance: 1968-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 125-152.
Ludwig, T .D ., & Geller, E.S. (1997). Assigned versus participative goal setting and
response generalization: M anaging injury control among professional pizza deliverers.
Journal o f Applied Psychology, 82(2), 253-261,
Phillips, J.M ., & Gully, S.M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for
achievement and focus of control in the self-efficacy and goal-setting process.
Journal o f Applied Psychology, 82(5), 792-802.
Ray, A.A. (Ed.). (1982). S A S user guide: Statistics. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
Sanders, M.S., & M cCorm ick, E.J. (1993). Human factors in engineering and design (7th
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shikdar, A.A. (1991). An investigation on the application o f production standards, production
feedback and monetary incentive in industry. D octoral dissertation, D epartm ent of
Industrial Engineering, Technical University of N ova Scotia, Canada.
Shikdar, A.A., & Das, B. (1992). The effects of assigning proj. ssively harder production
standards with feedback on worker productivity and satisfaction. International
Journal o f Human Factors in Manufacturing, 2(4), 325-337.
W offord, J.C., & Goodwin, V.L. (1990). Effects of feedback on cognitive processing and
choice of decision style. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 75(6), 603-612.