Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on self-regulation of complex decision making.

TLDR

The study tested whether perceived controllability and performance standard stringency influence self‑regulatory mechanisms in a simulated organization. Participants who viewed the organization as uncontrollable reported low self‑efficacy and lowered goals, whereas those who saw it as controllable maintained high self‑efficacy, set more challenging goals, and used analytic strategies, leading to markedly better organizational performance; path analyses confirmed that self‑efficacy mediated performance both directly and through goal setting and analytic thinking.

Abstract

Tested the hypothesis that perceived controllability and stringency of performance standards would affect self-regulatory mechanisms governing performance attainments of a simulated organization. Ss who managed the simulated organization under a cognitive set that organizations are not easily controllable displayed low perceived self-efficacy, even when standards were within easy reach, and lowered their organizational goals. Ss who operated under a cognitive set that organizations are controllable maintained a strong sense of self-efficacy, set increasingly challenging goals, and exhibited effective analytic thinking. The divergent changes in these self-regulatory factors were accompanied by large differences in organizational attainments. Path analyses revealed that perceived self-efficacy, which was affected by prior accomplishments, influenced subsequent organizational performance through its effects on analytic strategies. After further experience, the performance system was regulated more extensively and intricately by Ss' self-conceptions of efficacy. Perceived self-efficacy affected subsequent organizational attainments both directly and indirectly through its influence on personal goal challenges. Personal goals, in turn, enhanced organizational attainments directly and through mediation of analytic strategies.