Table of Contents
Description
This measure, (Goal Congruence) developed by Vancouver and Schmitt (1991), uses 14 items to assess the degree of congruence between the goals of an individual em ployee and the goals of his or her supervisor or peers. The instrument was originally developed and used in an educational environment. After obtain ing ratings of goals from an employee and a supervisor, the two profiles are compared by calculation of a measure of congruence called “D” (the Euclid ean distance), which is the square root of the sum of the squared differences between the ratings of an employee and the supervisor. The larger the D measure, the lower the congruence level. To obtain congruence between an employee and his or her peers, the D scores are calculated for an employee and each member of a group of peers. The congruence measure for each employee is the average of the D scores across all peers in the group.
Reliability
Reliability was indirectly assessed by the intraclass correlations of the goal congruence measures within schools. These averaged .24 (Vancouver & Schmitt, 1991).
Validity
Supervisor-subordinate goal congruence and employee-peer goal congruence were both positively correlated with subordinate job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and negatively correlated with intention to quit (Vancouver & Schmitt, 1991).
Source
Vancouver, J.B., & Schmitt, N. W. (1991). An exploratory examination of person-organization fit: Organizational goal congruence. Personnel Psy chology, 44, 333-352. Items were taken from Table 1, p. 343. Copyright© 1991. Reproduced with permission.
Items
Response are obtained on a 7-point Likert-type scale where O = of no importance and 6 = of primary importance. Respondents are asked to rate the importance of the following goals:
- Increase students’ basic skills
- Increase breadth of courses
- Enhance athletic programs
- Enhance co-curricular activities
- Upgrade staff development
- Increase cost-effectiveness
- Upgrade physical resources
- Achieve full racial integration
- Maximize instructional time through systemic changes
- Upgrade special education programs
- Upgrade discipline practices
- Increase parent/community involvement
- Upgrade academic programs
- Upgrade vocational educational programs