A Critique and Comments on Managing Time: The Effects of Personal Goal Setting On Resource Allocation Strategy and Task

Performance

A Critique and Comments on Managing Time: The Effects of Personal Goal Setting on Resource Allocation Strategy and Task Performance by Oriel J. Strickland & Mark Galimba Department of Psychology California State University, Sacramento

PSY101A

Steven Bock

Matthew Thompson

02/29/12

A Critique and Comments on Managing Time: The Effects of Personal Goal Setting On Resource Allocation Strategy and Task Performance

For this assignment I chose a paper written by Oriel J. Strickland and Mark Galimba from the California State University, Sacramento Department of Psychology entitled "Managing Time: The Effects of Personal Goal Setting on Resource Allocation Strategy and Task Performance" This study was performed to examine how setting goals may affect how people develop strategies as they work on many simultaneous tasks. I chose to read and review this study because it touches on subjects such as time and project management, task strategies and organization, and prioritization of tasks. All of these can be used to reiterate the lessons we have learned in the past three weeks in Professor Brock's Psychology 101 class. In this critique and essay I will first explain the hypotheses behind the experiment; how this experiment exemplifies how people prioritize and handle multiple tasks simultaneously. Next, I will explain the impact of the result of the experiment and its possible impact on future studies. I will explain my own insights on the experiment, the results and the reasons behind the outcomes. I will also include what further experiments I would suggest and to what ends as well as how I might apply this new knowledge in the growth of my own time management skills. This experiment started with a primary hypothesis of participants who set performance goals would experience less on-task non-task related thoughts and distractions and would not switch between tasks as often as those with no goals. The second hypothesis was that by setting goals and having a structured approach to multiple tasks would lead to an increase in performance than those with no set goals. The stated purpose was to examine how the process of setting performance goals may influence people's strategies as they work on multiple tasks. While the first hypothesis was supported by the experiments results, the second was not. This seems counter intuitive at first, but plausible if you factor in the participants Meyers - Briggs typology score and the intrinsic motivation that is inherent in setting and meeting goals. Intrinsic

A Critique and Comments on Managing Time: The Effects of Personal Goal Setting On Resource Allocation Strategy and Task Performance

motivation refers to behavior that is performed for its own sake.(Ilgen, Salas, Shapiro, and Weiss, Dec, 1975) The experiment called for two groups, one that was instructed to set their own performance goals and the other that was given no instructions at all. Three types of tasks were created that would both simulate what people would experience in daily work and to elicit different types of thought processes. The participants consisted of 116 university students (73 women, 43 men) Participants were given a pretest before the beginning of the experiment to create a baseline. Similar questions but no conditions. The first task of the three was to exercise the verbal/linguistic abilities by solving anagrams. The experiment used only three letter words to ensure that only one solution could be correct. The second task was to draw on the participants numeric/logical abilities by solving simple algebraic expressions for an unknown variable, x. The solutions to these problems were integers. The last task was to tap into the participants spatial/perceptual abilities. In this task participants were presented with a screen of pairs of letters and they were to select which pair was furthest away from each other. Participants in the goal set position were asked to indicate the number of correct responses the intended to reach for each of the three tasks. Each time a participant switched tasks, the switch was recorded. This was done for both those with set goals and those with no goals. Participants were allowed to see the number of correct items on their screens as they moved through the tasks. The experiment supported the hypothesis that those with self-set goals switched between tasks less often than those with no set goals. It also supported the hypothesis that those who set

A Critique and Comments on Managing Time: The Effects of Personal Goal Setting On Resource Allocation Strategy and Task Performance

goals experienced less on-task distracting thoughts. However, the findings of the experiment did NOT support the hypothesis that the group that set goals performed better than those who did not set goals. The experiment showed that those with no self-set goals actually performed significantly higher than those that had set goals. This experiment shows that setting performance goals can decrease distracting thoughts; provide structure, prioritization, and stronger focus on the task at hand. However, it also shows that setting goals doesn't necessarily lead to better performance. The experiment also did not address the need for achievement. Need for achievement is a variable that describes a person's drive to excel and to set personal goals that are challenging but attainable.(McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953) This paper was written very well. It addresses the authors hypothesis and expectations of findings; explains in detail how the experiment was set up and conducted to minimize both participant effects and experimenter effects; and, cites back to sources that have also contributed to this field of study. It was written step by step was easy to follow the course of thought and events leading to conclusion. It also goes into light detail how the results of this experiment can be used to further research in this field and addresses a few of the facets not covered by this experiment such as the need for achievement(Strickland & Galimba, July 2001) I agree with most of what this experiment and paper contain. However, I would have been very interested to know how the participants scored on the Myers-Briggs typology and personality test. I say this because just as the experimenters created tasks designed to engage particular mental abilities in the participants those same abilities can be translated over to how a person approaches such tasks. In regards to the matter of the non-goal setting participants

A Critique and Comments on Managing Time: The Effects of Personal Goal Setting On Resource Allocation Strategy and Task Performance

outperforming the participants that did set goals; I would suggest that this is the brains ability to move particular problems from one region to another so that while the conscience solves the more mundane tasks that doesnt require much thought the sub-conscience mulls over the more difficult problem in the background until it comes up with an answer. It then delivers this answer up on a platter to the conscience to be used. Given the time and opportunity, I would like to use this paper and experiment as a basis for a larger paper. It sets the stage for other experiments that can break down these initial findings into more precise measurements. In todays world of instant communication, multitasking, and a job market that almost requires higher level problem solving techniques, we can learn how the brain adapts to these stresses and will almost compartmentalize its problem solving while at the same time having to use all quarters of logic, spatial, linguistic, and mathematic parts of the brain. For example; compare four groups with the same experiment as described above. The first two groups would be left brain dominant in their problem solving approach and would be split into a goal setting group and non-goal setting group. The second two groups would be right brain dominant and again be split into the goal and non-goal groups. This would provide us with information on how each task and goal / non-goal relationships work for these two types of people. And even then, you would be able to introduce additional stimuli to the groups such as stress, perceived priorities, and monetary reward. I believe the findings would be interesting and in the long run make for a better understanding of how to make one more productive in any given situation.

A Critique and Comments on Managing Time: The Effects of Personal Goal Setting On Resource Allocation Strategy and Task Performance

REFERENCES
Ilgen, D.R., Salas, E., Shpiro, J. , & Weiss, H.M. (1988) Goal setting effects on individuals: An updated review and extension with a functional viewpoint. (Unpublished manuscript).

McClelland, D.C., Atkinson, J.W., Clark, R.A., & Lowell, E.I. (1953) The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Strickland, O.J., Galimba, M. (2001) Managing Time: The Effects of Personal Goal Setting on Resource Allocation Strategy and Task Performance. The Journal of Psychology p. 357