Advertisement

Goal-Classification and the Influence of Activity-Goal-Formation on Individuals’ Systemic-Consideration of Activity-Strategies and Decision-Outcomes

  • Mohammed-Aminu SandaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 953)

Abstract

The influencing role of students’ activity goal formation informed by their goal classification (i.e. highest or best) in their cognitive considerations of both activity strategies and decision outcomes for a pending task is examined in this study. Using data from a sample of 300 Graduate students preparing for an end-of-semester examination and the systemic structural activity analytical approach, it is found that actors’ cognitive classification of goals for pending activity as “highest” or “best” has no significant effect on the students’ goal formulation and the dynamic influence it has on their cognitive considerations for both activity strategy and decision outcome. Irrespective of goal classification, the students’ cognitive process of activity goal formation is found to significantly influence both their cognitive considerations of activity strategies and decision outcomes. It is concluded that the cognitive classification of goal has no direct significance on an students’ Goal formation process for a pending activity.

Keywords

Goal classification Activity goal formation Highest goal Best-goal Activity strategy Decision outcome 

References

  1. 1.
    Sanda, M.A.: Cognitive and emotional-motivational implications in the job design of digitized production drilling in deep mines. In: Hale, K.S., Stanney, K.M. (eds.) Advances in Neuroergonomics and Cognitive Engineering, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 488, pp. 211–222. Springer, Switzerland (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bedny, G.Z., Karwowski, W.: A Systemic-Structural Theory of Activity: Applications to Human Performance and Work Design. Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sanda, M.A., Johansson, J., Johansson, B., Abrahamsson, L.: Using systemic structural activity approach in identifying strategies enhancing human performance in mining production drilling activity. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 15(3), 262–282 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jarzabkowski, P.: Strategy as social practice: an activity theory perspective on continuity and change. J. Manage. Stud. 40(1), 23–55 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sanda, M.A.: Mediating subjective task complexity in job design: a critical reflection of historicity in self-regulatory activity. In: Carryl, B. (ed.) Advances in Neuroergonomics and Cognitive Engineering, pp. 340–350. Springer, Cham (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sanda, M.A.: Dichotomy of historicity and subjective perception of complexity in individuals’ activity goal formation and decision outcomes. In: Ayaz, H., Mazur, L. (eds.) Advances in Neuroergonomics and Cognitive Engineering, pp. 265–277. Springer, Cham (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sanda, M.A., Johansson, J., Johansson, B., Abrahamsson, L.: Using systemic approach to identify performance enhancing strategies of rock drilling activity in deep mines. In: Hale, K.S., Stanney, K.M. (eds.) Advances in Neuroergonomics and Cognitive Engineering, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 488, pp. 135–144. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Locke, E.A., Latham, G.P.: Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: a 35-year odyssey. Am. Psychol. 57(9), 705–717 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Locke, E.A.: Purpose without consciousness: a contradiction. Psychol. Rep. 25, 991–1009 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Locke, E.A., Saari, L.M., Shaw, K.N., Latham, G.P.: Goal setting and task performance: 1969–1980. Psychol. Bull. 90(1), 125–152 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Locke, E.A.: Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 3, 157–189 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smith, K., Locke, E., Barry, D.: Goal setting, planning and organizational performance: an experimental simulation. Organ. Behav. Hum. 46, 118–134 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dalal, D.K., Diab, D.L., Zhu, X.S., Hwang, T.: Understanding the construct of maximizing tendency: a theoretical and empirical evaluation. J. Behav. Decis. Making 28, 437–450 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sanda, M.A., Kuada, J.: Influencing dynamics of culture and employee factors on retail banks’ performances in a developing country context. Manage. Res. Rev. 39(5), 599–628 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Di Stefano, C., Zhu, M., Mîndrilă, D.: Understanding and using factor scores: considerations for the applied researcher. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 14(20) (2009). http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=14&n=20
  16. 16.
    Schumacker, R.E., Lomax, R.G.: A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Earley, P.C., Connolly, T., Ekegren, G.: Goals, strategy development and task performance: some limits on the efficacy of goal setting. J. Appl. Psychol. 74, 24–33 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Earley, P.C., Perry, B.: Work plan availability and performance: an assessment of task strategy priming on subsequent task completion. Organ. Behav. Hum. 39, 279–302 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Ghana Business SchoolLegonGhana
  2. 2.Luleå University of TechnologyLuleåSweden

Personalised recommendations