Objective 1: How does target cost effect a project?

The potential effects of target cost as identified through relevant literature can be categorized into behavioural effects and process related effects. The behavioural effects will mainly be discussed from Locke’s and Latham’s (2002) goal setting theory consisting of four effects.

Although motivation is the prerequisite for all actions, the mechanisms from goal theory interact in complex ways (Locke & Latham, 2002), and will therefore be mentioned as

18

separate effects in this section. Following the behavioural effects, an identification of the process effects of a target will be provided. The literature review related to objective 1 will be concluded by an overview of the negative aspects that might arise through implementing target cost.

Motivation

The theory regarding the effects of performance targets on motivation is complex (Hope &

Player, 2012). Goal setting theory suggests difficult goals have an energizing function (Locke & Latham, 2002). Difficult goals are motivating as they require individuals to attain more in order to be satisfied compared to easy goals. Motivation generated by challenging and specific goals is argued to be the primary mechanism to increase performance towards tasks (Wood, 1990).

Effort and persistence

Goals have been found to effect effort and persistence. If individuals are allowed to regulate the time spent towards a specific goal, effort is expected to be prolonged. The trade-off between time and effort also suggests that individuals might work more intensely towards this goal if there is limited time available (Locke & Latham, 2002). Cyert and March (1963) suggest that the tangible performance outcomes are enhanced by stretch goals as gaps

between aspiration and current performance elicit and guide effort and persistence (as cited in Sitkin et al., 2011).

Direct attention

According to Locke and Latham (2002), goals lead to a directive function both cognitively and behaviourally by focusing attention and effort towards goal relevant activities and away from goal irrelevant activities. Sitkin et al. (2011) adds that stretch goals force a substantial elevation in collective aspirations which lead to a shift in attention to possible new futures.

Stimulate new cost saving solutions and creativity

The fourth effect from Locke and Latham’s goal setting theory suggests that goals increase the tendency to discover and use task relevant knowledge and strategies (Locke & Latham, 2002). This also corresponds with Drucker’s idea of management by objectives, suggesting

19

that an effective way of promoting a continuous flow of ideas for improvement, is to challenge participants with “stretch targets”. This will create a creative tension between a desired situation and the current situation (Santos, Powell, & Torres Formoso, 2000). Hope and Player (2012) point out that CEO’s often complain that their organisation is not

innovative enough. By implementing stretch goals, Hope suggest that the performance bar is raised above “business as usual”, and puts pressure on teams to find innovative ways to achieve the targets.

Group cohesion

A fifth behavioural effect not explicitly included in Locke and Latham’s (2002) four effects of goal setting, suggests that group cohesion can increase when implementing goals.

According to Scott and Townsend (1994) team commitment and cohesion is likely to be stronger when there are higher goal levels (as cited in Santos et al., 2000). Hope and Player (2012) add that stretch goals increase team commitment to improvements and success if the goals are expressed in an inspiring way.

Target setting as a process to identify opportunities

Goals and targets will according to Galbraith (1973) imply an information processing

challenge as organisations will need to gather new sources and types of information and also develop new information processing methods (as cited in Sitkin et al., 2011). Although linked to budget setting, the process of target cost setting and budget setting can be related. Chong and Chong (2002) suggests that participation in budget setting serves as a function for subordinates to gather and dissimilate job relevant information. The process of target setting may encourage project members to examine and evaluate their specific cost centres in order to identify opportunities and areas in which potential to cut costs may lie.

Upwards communication and information sharing through target setting

In a budget setting context, Chong and Chong (2002) suggests that participation serves as a function to facilitate decision making by communicating and sharing information upwards in the organisation. As mentioned previously, the budget setting and target cost setting will entail a similar process, this may therefore also be valid when setting the target cost. By participating in target cost setting, project members may communicate and share private

20

information related to potential levels of cost reduction and opportunities. This information will then form the basis used by decision makers in producing the final target cost figure.

Increased risk taking

There is some empirical evidence suggesting that goals and targets do not only produce positive effects within organisations. Greve (1998) suggests that ambitious aspirations may lead to increased risk taking. If an organisation is performing below its desired aspirations, there might become an increase in risky organisational changes. Hope and Player (2012) suggest that targets cause people to focus primarily on meeting the numbers rather than adapting to emerging threats and opportunities. An additional threat suggests that people will pursue the target at any cost, impairing innovation and increasing the risk of unethical

behaviour (Hope & Player, 2012).

An example of unethical behaviour by linking organisational targets to personal incentives can be seen in the case of Shell and their stretch target to increase oil and gas reserves. In An audit in 2004, Shell was forced to cut their proved oil and gas reserves by 20%, consequently causing their share price to drop 10%. One theory emerging from this incident was that in the late 90’s, management in Shell had been encouraged to aim for stretch targets towards

increasing their oil and gas reserves. This stretch target was linked to incentive bonuses for the management, potentially motivating them to inflate their estimates of reserves (Taylor, 2006).

Targets might also lead to damaged relationships. Hope and Player (2012) provides an example of a purchasing manager with a cost reducing target. If this manager orders in bulk and pays the supplier late with no sense of accountability for poor quality, high cost of inventory, or supplier relations, this purchaser may have met his obligations by achieving the target. The results, however, will consist of a damaged relationship and an organisation worse off than to begin with.

Summary: Theory objective 1

The expected effects from a financial target identified from goal theory and other relevant literature are summarized in figure 3.

21

Figure 3: Theory objective 1: How does target cost effect a project?