The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Goal Ambiguity and Organizational Performance in U.S. Federal Agencies
Abstract
In spite of numerous observations that government organizations have high levels of organizational goal ambiguity that exert major influences on their other characteristics, few researchers have measured goal ambiguity and tested these frequent assertions. In previous research, we developed measures of four dimensions of goal ambiguity: mission comprehension ambiguity, directive goal ambiguity, evaluative goal ambiguity, and priority goal ambiguity. Confirming hypotheses developed from the literature on public organizations, the latter three variables showed relations to such organizational characteristics as organizational age, financial publicness (proportion of funding from government allocations), and regulatory status. This article reports a second analytical step of examining the relations between the goal ambiguity dimensions and indicators of organizational performance based on responses to the 2000 National Partnership for Reinventing Government Survey of federal employees. The performance variables included managerial effectiveness, customer service orientation, productivity, and work quality. Regression analyses with numerous control variables found that directive, evaluative, and priority goal ambiguity related negatively to managerial effectiveness. All four performance indicators showed significant negative relationships with evaluative goal ambiguity and directive goal ambiguity. The results provide further evidence of the viability of the new measures of goal ambiguity, support theory-based but previously untested hypotheses, and further indicate the feasibility and value of analyzing goal ambiguity of government organizations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
HUSELID, M. A. (1995) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256741 · Cited by 9,342
Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.57.9.705 · Cited by 7,766
Estimating the Reliability of a Single-Item Measure
Wanous, J. P., & Reichers, A. E. (1996) · Psychological Reports · doi:10.2466/pr0.1996.78.2.631 · Cited by 380
Cited by
Paarlberg, L. E., & Lavigna, B. (2010) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02199.x · Cited by 380
Christensen, J., Dahlmann, C. M., Mathiasen, A. H., Moynihan, D. P., & Petersen, N. B. G. (2018) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muy001 · Cited by 74
Effects of Ethics and Performance Management on Organizational Performance in the Public Sector
Khaltar, O., & Moon, M. J. (2020) · Public Integrity · doi:10.1080/10999922.2019.1615163 · Cited by 45
Resource Dependence Patterns and Organizational Behavior/Structure in Korean Nonprofit Organizations
Seo, J. (2016) · Nonprofit Management and Leadership · doi:10.1002/nml.21235 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Chun, Y. H.
- Venue
- Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-02-21
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 529-557
- ISSN
- 1053-1858 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-9803
- OpenAlex
- W2144843538
- Cited by
- 538
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 33.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Goal Ambiguity and Organizational Performance in U.S. Federal Agencies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jopart/mui030
- The paper
- Chun, Y. H. (2005). Goal Ambiguity and Organizational Performance in U.S. Federal Agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui030
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.