Goal-Driven Creation Mode

Mager (1961) indicated that with respect to learning, a goal is to define the learning performance (e.g. ability and method) that is observable and measurable. For example, a goal can be defined to be developing a database after a 3-hour lesson. Simon (1964) also mentioned that the goal of an action naturally is not unique, but generally consists of a whole set of constraints the action must satisfy. Therefore, a goal-setter defines a role for the firm and the environmental conditions develop role expectations for the firm. However, conflicts may arise when role definitions and expectations are

goal is a sign of a future attainment, and (2) a goal represents an allocation of present efforts or commitments.

There is a little difference between goal and objective. A goal is an ideal destination where an organization is trying to reach while an objective is the performance in a particular period that is measurable. Drucker (1964) introduced the concept of management by objective (MBO). It indicates that within an organizational system the organizational goal is decomposed into sub-goals which are delivered to each divisions and/or individual. These sub-goals then become the goals of each division and/or individual, and in consequence hierarchically form an organizational goal system. In order to reach their goal, organization members then generate ideas and regulate actions, which then become the goal-reaching processes. Awards are based on the degree of goal accomplishment by the SMART rules (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Result-oriented, and Timely). Therefore, this study defines the “goal” as the outcome(s) from a set of actions or commits (Hellström and Jacob, 2003).

In the goal formation process, Hill (2001) indicated that a complex organization does not possess unlimited goal-setting discretion; its choices are being increasingly influenced by external forces including stock holders, labor force (unions), the market:

consumers, the market: competitors, suppliers, creditors, community, and nation (government). Therefore, Managers should identify groups which require power to influence organizational outputs and goals. In the way of goal-reaching, Sweller and Levine (1982) proposed the means-ends analysis that can help find more goal-matching solutions. Within the thinking space a goal gives, this approach is based on a mechanism that looks reversely for solutions. Moreover, Gagné (1999) introduced the process of its use: (1) identify the goal and its difference to the current

state; (2) find a set of operations related to that difference, and (3) take actions on that operation to reduce the difference. In support on this, Ayres and Sweller (1990) proposed that problem configuration unfamiliarity may force to adopt means-ends strategy that causes the stage effect to find solutions efficiently and effectively.

However, Hill (2001) indicated that these operations may be greatly influenced by resources available, ability to deliver actions, and motivation of goal reaching.

Goal-driven mode basically is focused on knowledge of the goals and objectives of the programs, persons, and/or products (Scriven, 1977). Scriven (1977) indicated that the goal-driven mode has several features: (1) does not question the merit of goals, (2) often does not look at cost-effectiveness, (3) often fails to search for or locate the appropriate critical competitor, (4) often does not search for side-effects, and (5) often does not include a number of important and necessary components of an evaluation.

However, even it does include these components, they are referenced to the program (or personal) goals and therefore will have some more tasks that need to be done, such as identifying these goals, handling inconsistencies in them and changes in them and changes in them over time, dealing with shortfall and overrun results and avoiding the perceptual bias of knowing about them. For example, a product manager may raise a goal as “improving the front faceplate of our cell phones.” It is clearly realized that the product manager wants some ideas to improve the faceplate of cell phones. When an idea is proposed and is accepted by the manager, what is concerned is whether or not the faceplate is improved. In this case, the manager makes change of the faceplate of cell phones by using the goal-driven creation mode.

It is realized that in the goal-driven mode since the goal is predefined, the ultimate

evaluation criteria of the outcomes are not important. Moreover, with respect to the use of knowledge creation, the goal-driven mode that follows the predefined directions in a particular environment may help in producing outcomes more efficiently. Therefore, this can meet the rapid needs in the changing environment.

Accordingly, this study adopts the definition by Scriven (1977) that goal-driven creation mode concerns mainly about the degree of accomplishment for the predefined goal, without looking at the parameters or the processes how to reach that goal. In other words, what the goal-driven mode is to examine whether or not the goal is reached. Apparently, although both goal-free creation mode and goal-driven creation mode may have great potential on creation performance enhancement, they are quite different approaches. Their characteristics are summarized in a concise manner in Table 2-5.

Table 2-5: Characteristics of Goal-Free and Goal-Driven Creation Mode

Items Goal-free Goal-driven

Definition - No goal is defined - A goal is predefined

Goal recognition

- Any outcome is regarded as the bottom line of achievement

- Goal is regarded as important and the setting of goal is satisfactory

- It is satisfactory when the goal is reached

Goal flexibility - Goal is flexible - Side-effects are noticed

- Goal is fixed

- Side-effects are ignored Process of goal

achievement

- Ignored - Ignored

Pros

- Better in finding side-effects - Less straight to bias

- More flexible to setting the range of goal

- More efficiently

- Outcomes are more related to goal

Cons

- Less intrusive

- No focus from management perspective

- No side-effects are obtained

- Consequence of outcomes is ignored - Less flexible to fit to the present

conditions

- Goal quality may be overlooked Source: This study

Therefore, this study argues that goal-driven creation mode would have four features:

(1) goal recognition: the goal is regarded as an important index which should be satisfactory, (2) processes of goal achievement: the processes are ignored, and (3) goal without flexibility: the goal is fixed, and allow reaching a particular goal.

By these, this study is attempting to examine whether or not the knowledge creation modes are related to the creation performance. The hypothesis is then proposed as:

H2: The knowledge creation modes have significant influence on the creation performance.

Nonaka (1994) proposed that in a complex and variable environment, manager should look for appropriate creation method to sustain company’s creative competition advantage. James and Roffe (2000) suggested that enterprises with the characteristics of flexibility, high risk taker prefer the way think freely and flexibly to generate creation. Meanwhile, in an organization with knowledge-sharing culture, Angle (1989) indicated that organic organization enables greater organizational creation by way of flexible creative goal-setting, instead of chaotic creation. Furthermore, organizational culture with different characteristics could be helpful to stimulus of knowledge creation via the adoption of some knowledge creation mode.

However, With respect to the connections between organizational culture and knowledge creation modes (goal-free, goal-driven), there has been relatively little empirical work done for this issue. This study adopts the characteristics of culture proposed by Quinn (1988) as the research focus and is attempting to reveal their

H3: The organizational culture has significant influence on the knowledge creation modes.

2.5 The Impact of Organizational Culture on Creation